TC09643 - [2025] UKFTT 01117 (TC)

The Appellant submits there is nothing controversial or complex with the approach we were required to adopt. We are invited to discern the intention of Parliament in enacting the legislation we are to apply from the words used by reference to the well-documented purpose or mischief which the legislation intended to address. It was contended, in this regard that we could and should therefore use the consultation paper issued in August 2016 on the provisions introduced in 2017 and with which we are concerned, together with the governmental response to the consultation, guidance issued by HMRC on the operation of the provisions and the explanatory note to the clauses.

HMRC’s submissions were more nuanced. They accepted the position adopted by the Appellant. Still, they urged us to specifically construe the provisions of section 159A by reference to the heading of the section through which we could legitimately import the statutory definition of a “freeplay” as provided for in 160A(3). The heading so construed framed the scope of the provision. In this regard we were referred to the House of Lords judgment in R v Montila [2004] UKHL 50.

Generally, we were referred to the recent Supreme Court judgment in For Women of Scotland Ltd v Scottish Ministers [2025] UKSC 16 (Women of Scotland).