Abstract

In this article, the application of the UK doctrine of fiscal nullity by the Supreme Court is considered in light of the twin decisions in the cases of UBS AG v. IRC1¹ and DB Group Services (UK) Ltd v. IRC.2² This article argues that fiscal nullity is not a separate doctrine of taxation but can be explained in the way the facts are proven in a tax case, in the way that legal transactions are characterized and how the legislation is interpreted and applied. Using this as the conceptual framework of the paper, prior fiscal nullity cases have been analysed and decisions explained with a focus on different stages of the framework. UBS and DB Group Services findings relate to all three stages of the conceptual framework. Stage 1 requires that the court view the background ‘matrix of fact’ in a very objective manner. Stage 2 is the construction of the legal relations and the application of the statute particularly around the concept of ‘restricted security.’ Stage 3 concerns the purposive interpretation of ‘restricted security’ within the meaning of the legislation (section 425(2) ITEPA (UK)). Consequently, the decision in these two cases is not a departure from prior decisions.

中文翻译：

---

瑞银（UBS AG）诉IRC，DB Group Services（UK）Ltd诉IRC：财政无效和最高法院*

摘要

本文根据UBS AG诉IRC 1 ¹案和DB Group Services（UK）Ltd诉IRC案的双重判决，考虑了最高法院在英国实行的财政无效学说。2 ²本文认为，财政无效不是一种单独的税收学说，而是可以通过在税案中证明事实的方式，以法律交易为特征的方式以及如何解释和应用法律的方式进行解释。以此作为本文的概念框架，已经对先前的财政无效案例进行了分析，并着重于框架的不同阶段对决策进行了解释。瑞银和DB Group Services的调查结果涉及概念框架的所有三个阶段。第一阶段要求法院以非常客观的方式审视背景“事实矩阵”。第二阶段是法律关系的构建和法规的应用，尤其是围绕“限制性安全”的概念。第3阶段涉及立法意义内对“受限安全”的有目的的解释（ITEPA（英国）第425（2）条）。因此，在这两种情况下的决定都不会偏离先前的决定。