https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2023/TC09105.html&query=(%22.2024.)+AND+(UKFTT)+AND+(223%22)

This case concerned an application by HMRC for specific disclosure of documents. The Appellant sought the return of documents seized during a criminal investigation under section 59 Criminal Justice and Police Act 2001(‘CJPA’) but HMRC wished to retain copies for use in civil VAT proceedings. The specific disclosure application concerned several thousand documents. The Tribunal directed disclosure on the basis that the matter involved a high-value complex case where a wider disclosure than that required by rule 27 of the Tribunal Rules was appropriate; further the Tribunal was satisfied that HMRC would suffer an unfair disadvantage in the litigation as a result of lack of access to the material. Julian represented HMRC.

https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2024/TC09071.html&query=(IPS)+AND+(Progression)+AND+(Limited)

This case concerned the scope of the Disclosure of Tax Avoidance Schemes (DOTAS) rules in respect of an application by HMRC for determination by the Tribunal of a penalty for failure to provide HMRC with prescribed information relating to notifiable arrangements (FA 2004, s 308(3), TMA ss 98C, 100C). The issues were whether there were notifiable arrangements, whether the Respondent was a “promoter” in relation to notifiable arrangements, whether the Respondent had a reasonable excuse and the quantum of the penalty. The penalty was less than that sought by HMRC, and the FTT accepted that a protective disclosure was not an admission that arrangements were subject to DOTAS. Julian represented IPS.

Link here: https://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk//judgmentfiles/j12827/TC%2008914.pdf .

This appeal concerned stamp duty land tax involving a high value property (in excess of £5m) and whether the land purchased was mixed use such that table B of Finance Act 2003 determined the rate for SDLT purposes (this is a lower rate of SDLT than for residential property). The issues concerned whether land had been commercially let for non-residential use, and whether rights to use communal gardens derived under the Town Gardens Protection Act 1863 resulted in the purchase being treated as mixed use under Schedule 4ZA of the Finance Act 2003.

concerns whether the grant of an option by B to C was within subsale relief so that no SDLT applied to an earlier contract between A and B even if B occupied the property. The matter is the lead case for 41 appeals, representing tax at stake of over £4million. The issue concerned whether the SDLT planning resulted in nil liability. This turned on: (a) whether the grant of the option was an “other transaction” within s.45(1)(b) FA 2003 (the subsale rules); (b) the extent to which the consideration to be brought into account under s45(3) FA 2003 was solely £100 paid on grant of the Option; and not £5million (being the consideration paid to the original vendor(A)); (c) whether the option was a deemed secondary contract within s.45(3) FA 2003, which had been substantially performed by payment of the option price, so that the contract between the original vendor (A) and intermediate purchaser (B) was disregarded.

Link here for decision: Fanning v Revenue & Customs [2023] EWCA Civ 263 (13 March 2023) (bailii.org)

considers material points on the interaction of (i) HMRC’s statutory powers under s.18(2)(a),(c) of the Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 to make voluntary disclosure of a taxpayer’s confidential documents to a co-appellant in circumstances where that party is blaming the taxpayer for deliberate tax inaccuracies; and (ii) the extent (if any) of the First-Tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction and powers under the Tribunal Procedure (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 to control and/or prohibit the disclosure by HMRC of such documents. I argued that s.18 must be read narrowly to protect the fundamental right of taxpayer confidentiality: R (Ingenious Media Holdings plc) [2016]; that s18(2)(a) did not give HMRC
an unrestricted power to make disclosure, s.18(2)(c) was the basis for disclosure in civil proceedings; such disclosure being subject to the common law rules on admissibility and the power of the FTT to exclude evidence under Rules 5, 15, 27. Court held (i) applied. Overturned successful outcomes in FTT and UT. 

Link here for Decision: Mitchell & Anor v Revenue and Customs [2023] EWCA Civ 261 (10 March 2023) (bailii.org)

establishes the principle that if a trust exists over unsegregated property a claim to entrepreneurs relief is available. I made legal submissions
on whether a trust existed (whether express, constructive or implied) over a decimal percentage of shares held by other shareholders; and whether this justified a claim to entrepreneurs’ relief under the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992, sections 169I and 169S; further whether an unidentified percentage of shares met the requirement for certainty of subject-matter to constitute a trust; and whether or not the appellant held at least 5% of the ordinary share capital of the company and at least 5% of the voting rights by virtue of a beneficial holding in respect of shares held on trust. The case involved a number of submissions on the evidence, and having to conduct examination in chief and re-examination of the appellant’s 3 witnesses.

Link here for decision: SEAMUS KAVANAGH v Revenue & Customs (Capital Gains Tax entrepreneurs’ relief) [2022] UKFTT 173 (TC) (31 May 2022) (bailii.org)

The legal issues concerned the availability of Stamp Duty Land Tax subsale relief and its application to an option granted in respect of land. See Court of Appeal above.
Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)

concerned an application for permission to notify a late appeal to HMRC, and whether the First-tier Tribunal had made an error of law in refusing permission, and the extent to which the FTT had engaged properly with the strength of the Appellant’s case in carrying out its balancing exercise. UT held the FTT did make an error of law in failing to follow the guidance in Martland and in failing to give reasons which properly supported its decision, but the FTT’s decision was nonetheless a correct one in the light of the Martland criteria applied correctly.

Link here for decision: 275.pdf (bailii.org)

the issue concerned the extent of permissible disclosure of documents by HMRC relating to the tax and business affairs of one appellant (Mr. Mitchell) to another appellant (Mr. Bell) in respect of the validity of personal liability notices; and whether either appellant was a shadow direction under Finance Act 2007, Schedule 24, paragraph 24. See Court of Appeal above.

Link here for decision: Mark Mitchell and Paul Bell v Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 250 (TCC) (8 October 2021) (bailii.org)

concerned the extent to which a transfer to an offshore trust (an EBT) could be set aside for mistake of law and/or fact. Defence to mistake claim / rectification in respect of employee benefit trusts.

Link here for decision: Bhaur & Ors v Equity First Trustees (Nevis) Ltd & Ors [2021] EWHC 2581 (Ch) (28 September 2021) (bailii.org)

Validity of VAT best judgment assessments, and whether the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) had erred in making factual findings beyond the agreed issues, whether the FTT had failed to take into account relevant evidence, whether the FTT made a finding not available to it on the evidence. Represented HMRC.

Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)

Annuity given as consideration for purchase of property, whether s.52 (annuity provisions) or s53 (sale involving a company) applied to determine taxable consideration; and whether s.52 limited SDLT or s.53 imposed market value consideration for SDLT purposes.

Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)

concerned a novel point regarding temporary disuse and the availability of Industrial Buildings Allowances (IBAs), which were designed to encourage capital investment in buildings. HMRC argued there was no entitlement to any IBAs because buildings could only be regarded as in temporary disuse if, following a period they were actually brought back into use (which the buildings in this case were not).

Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)

whether the Chartered Institute of Taxation is a public body, and whether referral of a CIOT member to the Taxation Disciplinary Board was in breach of natural justice.

Hannah & Anor v Revenue & Customs [2021] UKUT 22 (Upper Tribunal) (SDLT – whether annuity sole consideration for house purchase, ss. 52, s.75A) [2019] UKFTT 342 (TC).

Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)

the case concerned Stamp Duty Land Tax and the availability of Multiple Dwellings Relief for an annexe to a main building.

Link here for decision: TC08103.pdf (bailii.org)

the point concerned the correct legal principles to be applied in an application for specific disclosure of documents in respect of information shared between HMRC and the Belgian tax authorities pursuant to inter-jurisdictional co-operation and confidentiality obligations under Article 25 (Mutual Agreement Procedure) of the UK-Belgian Double Taxation Agreement. I had to make detailed submissions on the case law relating to disclosure, and the nature of the test for relevance and how it should be determined in connection with the issues in dispute between the parties concerning the tax residence of Mr. McCabe, including the scope of any disclosure application where a party claims documents are confidential (including the scope and application of the decision in National Crime Agency v Abacha [2016]). The case is relevant to all the UK tax treaties (in excess of 100).

Link here for decision: $ (bailii.org)

HMRC seeking to rely on documents confidential to one appeal in joined appeal
concerning that appellant and another appellant – first appellant objecting – decision based on relevance of material – application allowed in part before FTT. See UT and Court of Appeal decisions above.

Link here for decision: TC07598.pdf (bailii.org)