Key Facts
- •Cats North Sea Limited (CNSL) appealed against HMRC's closure notice concerning capital allowances for the 2015 accounting period.
- •The appeal concerned the disposal of the Central Area Transmission System (CATS) pipeline by Amoco (UK Exploration Company LLC) to its wholly-owned subsidiary, CNSL, and the subsequent sale of CNSL shares.
- •The CATS pipeline was used to transport hydrocarbons from both BP group and non-BP group companies.
- •Before the transfer, Amoco treated its CATS activities as wholly within the ring fence (IRF); after the transfer, CNSL treated its CATS activities as partly IRF and partly outside the ring fence (ORF).
- •Amoco had made an election under s231(1) Finance Act 1994 (the 'Election') regarding PRT treatment of the CATS pipeline.
- •The key dispute centered on the interaction between the ring fence trade provisions and the capital allowances code, particularly the application of s279 CTA 2010 and Part 22 CTA 2010.
Legal Principles
Interaction of ring fence trade provisions with capital allowances code.
Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010), Capital Allowances Act 2001 (CAA 2001)
Transfer of a trade provisions (Part 22 CTA 2010).
CTA 2010
Capital allowances disposal events.
CAA 2001
Petroleum Revenue Tax (PRT) rules and the effect of elections.
Oil Taxation Act 1983 (OTA), Finance Act 1994
Apportionment of expenditure for capital allowances.
CAA 2001
Interpretation of deeming provisions.
Fowler v HMRC [2020] UKSC 22
Purposive approach to statutory interpretation.
R (on the application of AAA (Syria) & Ors) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2023] UKSC 42
Transfer of trade case law.
Falmer Jeans
Outcomes
Part 22 CTA 2010 applied to the hive-down.
The Tribunal found that the activities carried on by Amoco and CNSL were substantially the same, despite the different tax classifications (IRF and ORF) due to s279 CTA 2010. The deeming provision of s279 did not preclude the application of Part 22.
A disposal event occurred under s61 CAA 2001 when CNSL began using the CATS pipeline for ORF activities.
CNSL's use of the assets for ORF purposes, even though it inherited the TWDV under Part 22, triggered a disposal event. The market value (capped at historic cost) was brought into account, leading to a balancing charge.
The CATS Election had no effect on the capital allowances analysis.
The Tribunal concluded that the Election under s231 FA 1994 only affected PRT treatment, not corporation tax ring fence treatment. Amoco's trade remained wholly IRF for corporation tax purposes.
CNSL's appeal was dismissed, and the closure notice was confirmed.
The Tribunal's findings supported HMRC's position that a balancing charge arose due to CNSL's use of the CATS pipeline for ORF activities following the hive-down.