![UT/2023/000055 - [2025] UKUT 00028 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Grounds of appeal by hoopla
Grounds of appeal by hoopla
Hoopla now advance the following grounds in respect of which it says the FTT erred in law:
That neither Entertainment nor any other member of the CHF Group was “party to the arrangements”.
The FTT did not attempt to define what being a “party” to the arrangements meant.
The payments to Entertainment in return for provision of services, as arm’s length commercial sub-contracting could not be amounts which “in the course of arrangements, [were] paid to or for the benefit of” Entertainment.
While, as identified by HMRC, Hoopla’s grounds of appeal raise various points that were not argued before the FTT and as new arguments should only be permitted in our discretion, we note they principally concern points of statutory interpretation. We consider that, despite HMRC’s objection, it is in the interests of justice that Hoopla be allowed to raise them before us. We agree however with HMRC that Ground 2 is most conveniently dealt with in conjunction with Ground 1.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- Grounds of appeal by hoopla
- Grounds 1 and 2 – interpretation and application of “party to”
- Coconut UT
- Parties’ submissions in outline
- Discussion
- Explanatory notes to Finance Bill 2012
- Ordinary meaning / OED definition
- Distinction between being “Party to” part of arrangements vs “party to” all of arrangements ?
- Ground 3 – payments to Entertainment in return for provision of services, as arm’s length commercial sub-contracting could not be amounts which “in the course of arrangements, [were] paid to or for th
- Conclusions