![UT/2023/000055 - [2025] UKUT 00028 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Case Number: UT/2023/000055
Rolls Building, London
INCOME TAX – Enterprise Investment Scheme – s175A Income Tax Act 2007 – whether FTT erred in law in holding there were disqualifying arrangements - no – Coconut Animated Island Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKUT 75 (TCC) followed - appeal dismissed
Judgment date: 23 January 2025
Before
JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN
JUDGE NICHOLAS ALEKSANDER
Between
HOOPLA ANIMATION LIMITED
(FORMERLY KNOWN AS DAISY BOO AND MONKEY TOO LIMITED)
Appellant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
Representation:
For the Appellant: Harriet Brown and Rebecca Sheldon, counsel, instructed pro bono
For the Respondents: Ruth Hughes, Tomos Rees, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
DECISION
- 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