Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000101 - [2025] UKUT 00072 (TCC)

Fecha: 17-Dic-2024

Grounds of appeal

Grounds of appeal

53.

The appellants rely on three grounds of appeal:

Ground 1 – The FTT failed to correctly construe, and took into account irrelevant considerations in its application of, section 42(2) FA 1996 and Note 9(a) of the QMO (‘the relevant statutory provisions’).

Ground 2 – The FTT erred in law in applying an “essence of the process” / “only purpose” test which is not contained in, and involves an impermissible gloss on, the relevant statutory provisions.

Ground 3 - The FTT erred in law in failing to construe the relevant statutory provisions purposively and /or failing to consider whether its construction and application of the relevant statutory provisions – in particular its “essence of the process” / “only purpose” test – was consistent with the underlying environmental objectives of section 42(2) FA 1996, the QMO and the Treasury criteria and / or produced a result which was inconsistent with those environmental objectives.

54.

Mr Nawbatt submitted under Ground 1 that if the words “the essence of” were deleted from [129], then that paragraph would properly set out the relevant statutory test. The underlying criticism in all three grounds of appeal is that the FTT erred in law in applying a test which involved consideration of whether the essence of the process (or the only purpose) by reference to which the waste material was produced involved a reaction between calcium compounds and the ferrous chloride waste from titanium dioxide production.

55.

On that basis we can address all three grounds of appeal together and consider whether the FTT erred in law by placing an impermissible gloss on the statutory wording in seeking to identify the essence and only purpose of the process which produced the FCC Waste.