Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000098 - [2024] UKUT 00404 (TCC)

Fecha: 16-Oct-2024

Appellant’s submissions

Appellant’s submissions

37.

In his written submissions Mr Elliott had described the FTT as having concluded that the transactions gave rise to earnings on the grounds that the Loan conferred a benefit on MC, and that the amount of the taxable earnings was the amount of the principal of the loan (ie £800,000). The Appellant’s position was that this conclusion is contrary to the statutory regime and the principles established in the case law.

38.

At the hearing Mr Elliott’s approach was to address:

(1)

the principles relevant to the exercise of discretion by the Upper Tribunal (the “UT”) to set aside a decision under s12 Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 (“TCEA 2007”);

(2)

the reasoning and conclusion in the Decision, submitting that the error of law made by the FTT was material;

(3)

the error of law made by the FTT at [33] to [37] when it concluded that in the vast majority of cases a “genuine money loan on commercial terms” will confer a “benefit” on the borrower and in the context of this case the Loan conferred a benefit on MC such that its payment to MC was potentially within the ambit of s62; and

(4)

what was submitted to be the correct outcome on re-making the Decision. On re-making a decision the UT may make any decision which the FTT could make if the FTT were re-making the decision and may make such findings of fact as it considers appropriate. The UT should reach the conclusion that neither the Payment nor the Loan are earnings within s62(2).