There is no justification for HMRC saying that the tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to his appeal
There is no justification for HMRC saying that the tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to his appeal.
He accepted that he had received a tax benefit, but the main reason for using AML was administrative given that he was working overseas and needed someone to deal with his tax affairs.
He believed AML and his accountants when they said that the scheme “worked”. He believed them when they said that the loan was not taxable.
- 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
![TC09660 - [2025] UKFTT 01226 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)