![TC09660 - [2025] UKFTT 01226 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
The loan was repaid and thus there is no liability to tax on it
The loan was repaid and thus there is no liability to tax on it.
The retrospective application of the loan charge legislation in 2016/2017 is relevant to his position yet no mention has been made about it by HMRC other than to state in the review letter that it was outside the scope of the review.
Furthermore, HMRC should have collected any employment tax from the employer (i.e. AML) rather than from himself. They should have exercised their discretion to do so in his favour.
In relying on professional advice, he has behaved reasonably and he should not be penalised for the arrangements which he believed to be effective when he entered into them.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS
- DISCUSSION
- There is no justification for HMRC saying that the tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to his appeal
- The Rangers decision was released after the tax year under consideration
- The loan was repaid and thus there is no liability to tax on it
- The effect of the decision in RFC 2012 plc (formerly the Rangers Football Club plc) v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 45 (“ Rangers ”) is that the payments made by the employer to the trust
- The decision in Hoey v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 656 (“ Hoey ”) is authority for the proposition that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider HMRC’s discretion to impose any tax on Mr Brown rather th
- There is no justification in the complaints made about the statutory review process which was undertaken wholly properly The application of the loan charge legislation is not relevant to this appeal
- My view
- Conclusions