The Ramsay Principle is the shorthand name given to the decision of the House of Lords in two important cases in the field of UK tax, reported in 1982:
- Ramsay v. IRC, the full name of which is W. T. Ramsay Ltd. v. Inland Revenue Commissioners, Eilbeck (Inspector of Taxes) v. Rawling, and its citation is A.C. 300.
- IRC v. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd., the full name of which is Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd., and its citation is S.T.C. 30, H.L.(Sc.)
In summary, companies that had made substantial capital gains had entered into complex and self-cancelling series of transactions that had generated artificial capital losses, for the purpose of avoiding capital gains tax. The House of Lords decided that where a transaction has pre-arranged artificial steps that serve no commercial purpose other than to save tax, the proper approach is to tax the effect of the transaction as a whole.
The decision is not limited to capital gains tax, but applies to all forms of direct taxation, and is an important restraint on the ability of taxpayers to engage in creative tax planning.
Read more about The Ramsay Principle: Facts (Ramsay V. IRC), Facts (Eilbeck V. Rawling), 'Particles' in A Gas Chamber, Facts (IRC V. Burmah Oil), Judgments, Developments
Famous quotes containing the words ramsay and/or principle:
“The source of Pyrrhonism comes from failing to distinguish between a demonstration, a proof and a probability. A demonstration supposes that the contradictory idea is impossible; a proof of fact is where all the reasons lead to belief, without there being any pretext for doubt; a probability is where the reasons for belief are stronger than those for doubting.”
—Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686–1743)
“I sincerely believe ... that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.”
—Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)