This is an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tribunal which had found the place of effective management (POEM) of Mauritius trusts to be in the UK. The first and second appellants are the settlors of separate family trusts which engaged in a tax planning arrangement known as the “round the world” scheme. They hoped that the trustees of the family trusts would avoid capital gains tax on disposals of shares on the flotation of a company called TeleWork Group Plc. It is now common ground that the scheme was effective to achieve the capital gains tax savings if, amongst other things, the family trusts became resident in Mauritius by the time of disposal. The scheme would only be effective if the place of effective management (the “POEM”) of the trusts was in Mauritius. Judgement of the Court The Court upheld the decision of the First-tier Tribunal and decided in favour of the tax authorities. Excerpts: “We have described above the test for POEM applied by the FTT. The FTT stated that it was applying the general approach of the SpC in Smallwood, without reference to the test for central management and control described in Wood v Holden. We are satisfied that the FTT applied the test for POEM described by the SpC at [130]. It considered “in which state the real top level management (or the realistic, positive management) of the trustee qua trustee is found”. In applying that test the FTT did not use the tool of Wood v Holden and in light of the judgment of Hughes LJ in Smallwood it was entitled to take that approach. We are satisfied therefore that the FTT made no error of law in the test it applied. The FTT at [361] found that the POEM of the trusts was the UK in the relevant period. It based that conclusion on its findings of fact summarised at [362]. Those findings mirror the findings which Hughes LJ held entitled the SpC in Smallwood to find that the POEM of the trust in that case was the UK. Mr Rivett accepted that if the FTT did apply the right test then the appeal must be dismissed. The application of the test is acutely fact sensitive and there was no Edwards v Bairstow challenge on this appeal. Conclusion For the reasons given above we are satisfied that the FTT made no error of law in the test it applied to identify the POEM of the trusts. The appeals must therefore be dismissed.” ...