{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.01866977829638273, 'fraction_numerical': 0.008168028004667444, 'mean_word_length': 4.836734693877551, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Tax consequences of setting aside a voidable transaction on the ground of mistake


 This article considers whether there is, as has been widely assumed until now, a general principle that, if a voidable transaction is avoided by an order of the court (for example, on grounds of mistake or under the Hastings-Bass rule), the order operates retrospectively for all purposes, including fiscal purposes. It discusses whether the Court of Appeal decision in Clark v HMRC [2020] EWCA Civ 204 throws doubt on the existence and ambit of such a principle. It also explores how the principle operates where the court imposes terms on the rescission of a transaction, such as a requirement that one or more of the parties enters into a fresh transaction, or where there have been intervening transactions between the voidable transaction and the order rescinding it.