![UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000098 - [2024] UKUT 00404 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000098 - [2024] UKUT 00404 (TCC)
Fecha: 16-Oct-2024
Exercise of discretion under s12 TCEA 2007
Mr Elliott submitted that whilst the UT has a broad discretion under s12 TCEA 2007 (with s12(1) and (2) providing that if the UT finds that the making of the decision involved the making of an error on a point of law the UT “may (but need not)” set aside the decision), the need to consider materiality narrows this discretion.
Mr Elliott relied on the judgment of Henderson LJ in Degorce v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 1427 (“Degorce”) at [93] to [95] and the principle that where an error of law is detected which is material (in the sense that the error “might (not would)” have made a difference to the decision), justice will normally require nothing less than that the decision be set aside. Mr Elliott submitted that in the present case the error of law made by the FTT was a crucial step in its reasoning and was material.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Relevant legislation
- FTT Decision
- Arrangements concerning the EBT
- Approach and conclusions of the FTT
- Ground of appeal
- FTT’s consideration of whether the Loan was a reward or benefit
- Appellant’s submissions
- Exercise of discretion under s12 TCEA 2007
- Reasoning of the FTT in the Decision
- Whether the Decision involved the making of an error of law at [33] to [37]
- Correct outcome on re-making the decision
- HMRC’s submissions
- Headline response to ground of appeal
- Facts as found by the FTT
- Legal principles relevant to test for earnings
- Reasoning of the FTT in the Decision
- Correct outcome on re-making the Decision
- Discussion and conclusion
- Whether the Decision involved the making of an error of law
- Conclusions