TC09624 - [2025] UKFTT 01065 (TC)

Fecha: 23-May-2025

Authorities and documents

Authorities and documents

10.

The authorities to which we were specifically referred by the parties included:

(1)

RFC 2012 plc (in liquidation) (formerly Rangers Football Club plc) v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] STC 1556 (‘RFC’);

(2)

Ransom (Inspector of Taxes) v Higgs’s Settlement Trustee; Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes) v Downes; Grant (Inspector of Taxes) v Downes's Settlement Trustees; Kilmorie (Aldridge) Ltd v Dickinson (Inspector of Taxes) [1974] STC 539 (‘Ransom’);

(3)

Wing v O’Connell [1927] IR 84 (‘Wing v O’Connell’);

(4)

Prest v Prest [2013] 2 AC 415 (‘Prest’);

(5)

Wisniewski v Central Manchester Health Authority [1998] PIQR 324; LI Rep Med 223 (‘Wisniewski’);

(6)

British Airways PLC v Airways Pension Scheme Trustee Ltd [2017] EWHC 1191 (Ch) (‘British Airways’);

(7)

Sports Club v Inspector of Taxes [2000] STC (SCD) 443;

(8)

Fenty & Ors v Arcadia Group Brands Ltd & Anor [2013] EWHC 1945 (Ch) (‘Fenty & Ors’);

(9)

Hamid v Francis Bradshaw Partnership [2013] EWCA Civ 470 (‘Hamid’);

(10)

Advocate General for Scotland v Murray Group Holdings Ltd [2015] CSIH 77 (‘Murray Group’);

(11)

Gulliver v HMRC [2017] UKFTT (TC) (‘Gulliver’);

(12)

Robin Houldsworth v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 224 (TC) (‘Houldsworth’);

(13)

Al Fayed v Advocate General for Scotland (representing the Inland Revenue Commissioners) [2002] STC 910 (‘Al Fayed’);

(14)

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte MFK Underwriting Agencies Ltd [1989] STC 873; [1989] BTC 561; [1990] 1 WLR 1545 (‘MFK’);

(15)

Robin Houldsworth v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 224 (TC) (‘Houldsworth’); and

(16)

Alway Sheet Metal v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 198 (TC) (‘Alway’).

11.

The documents to which we were referred to were referred included the: (i) Hearing Bundle consisting of 248 pages (within which were the Notice of Appeal, the Further and Better Particulars and the Statement of Case dated 16 September 2022); (ii) Authorities Bundle consisting of 1314 pages; (iii) Appellant’s Skeleton Argument dated 8 May 2025; and (iv) Respondent’s Skeleton Argument dated 17 June 2024.

12.

Having carefully considered the evidence given and the submissions made by both parties, we dismissed this appeal. We are grateful to both representatives for the submissions made (both oral and written). We are also grateful to the Appellant for his attendance and his engagement in these proceedings. Our findings and conclusions below are not to be interpreted to mean that the Appellant has engaged in any tax avoidance, but are a balanced appraisal of the legislation and its consequences.

13.

In this Decision, the legislation and case law are cited so far as relevant to the issues in dispute.