Heading

Case Number: TC09562
Taylor House
Appeal reference: TC/2022/13067
CORPORATION TAX – whether a company leaving a group was subject to a degrouping charge under Section 179 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 in respect of the goodwill in four businesses that it had acquired intra–group within the six years before it left the group – prior to leaving the group, the company had entered into agreements with an unconnected company (with which it became connected a few days later) (the “purchaser”) under which it agreed to dispose of the goodwill and the right to carry on the businesses to the purchaser but to continue to manage the businesses as the purchaser’s agent – determination that whether or not the company continued to own the goodwill at the point when it left the group depended on whether, on a realistic view of the facts, those agreements had given rise to a disposal of the goodwill in law or in equity – concluding that, viewed realistically, the agreements did not have that effect and that the company therefore owned the goodwill when it left the group and was subject to the charge – appeal dismissed
Judgment date: 23 June 2025
Before
TRIBUNAL JUDGE TONY BEARE
Between
CURRYS RETAIL LIMITED
Appellant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Mr Malcolm Gammie KC, Mr Michael Ripley, Mr Charles Brabin and Mr Edward Hellier, of counsel, instructed by Reynolds Porter Chamberlain LLP
For the Respondents: Mr John Brinsmead–Stockham KC, Ms Sarah Black and Mr Jonathan Moss, of counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs
DECISION
heading | page |
introduction | 1 |
the agreed facts | 1 |
the agreed issues | 3 |
the agreements | 3 |
other documents | 10 |
discussion | 16 |
disposition | 50 |
right to apply for permission to appeal | 50 |
- Heading
- Introduction
- Key parties
- Acquisition of the Businesses
- The SPA and the MSA
- The Degrouping
- Procedural background
- the agreed issues
- the agreements
- The SPA
- The MSA
- The Side Letter
- Initial observations on the Agreements and the Side Letter
- other documents
- The Prior SPAs
- The Property Services Agreement
- The Brand Licence
- The Accounts
- The Invoice
- “ About the matter we have finished checking
- “Partial closure notice (PCN)
- The issues – a summary
- Issue One – applicability of the authorities in relation to statutory construction
- Conclusion
- “15 In the task of ascertaining whether a particular statutory provision imposes a charge, or grants an exemption from a charge, the Ramsay approach is generally described – as it is in the statements
- Issue Two – the scope of the rule prohibiting assignment “in gross”
- Conclusion
- Issue Three – ownership of the Businesses following the execution of the Agreements
- Conclusion
- No provision in the Agreements for the transfer of the Businesses
- No provision in the Agreements for the transfer of assets other than Goodwill or the assumption of any liabilities
- No transfer of employees
- Did BBUK carry on the Businesses after the Agreements became effective?
- This meant that the only way that BBUK could carry on the Businesses was through CPW as its agent. In that regard, I do not doubt the fact that it is possible for a company to carry on a business thro
- Entitlement to the profits of the Businesses
- Conclusion in relation to the ability to dictate the overall strategy and direction of the Businesses and entitlement to the profits of the Businesses
- Final observations
- Conclusion
- Issue Four – assignment in equity
- Conclusion
- Issue Five – not the same asset
- Conclusion
- Issue Six – the relevance of the transaction effected by Agreements in the event that Section 179(3) applied
- Conclusion
- Issue Seven – the tax consequences of the transaction effected by Agreements in the event that Section 179(3) applied
- Conclusions
![TC09562 - [2025] UKFTT 00762 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)