![[2024] UKUT 00152 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
The Grounds of Appeal and Respondent’s Notice
The Grounds of Appeal and Respondent’s Notice
The FTT gave HMRC permission to appeal. Although HMRC’s Grounds of Appeal were not numbered in this way, we find it helpful to divide our analysis of HMRC’s appeal into the following grounds:
Ground 1 – the FTT misconstrued Article 12(5) of the UK-Ireland treaty in the manner summarised in paragraph 14(2) above. As a result, it approached the analysis of SICL’s purpose wrongly.
Ground 2 – the FTT made an overarching error that infected its analysis of both SICL’s and BLM’s purpose by failing to appreciate that the sole (or, at least, a main) economic basis for the Assignment was UK WHT arbitrage resulting from BLM’s reliance on Article 12(1) of the UK-Ireland treaty.
Ground 3 – the FTT made specific errors in its determination of BLM’s purpose.
Ground 4 – the FTT made specific errors in its determination of SICL’s purpose.
Ground 5 – an Edwards v Bairstow “irrationality” or “perversity” challenge.
Ground 1 involves pure propositions of law. HMRC accept that Grounds 2 to 5 are challenges to evaluative factual conclusions that the FTT reached and that a high hurdle must be overcome for such a challenge to succeed.
By its Respondent’s Notice, BLM seeks to revive the argument summarised in paragraph 14(1) above rejected by the FTT.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The relevant provisions of the UK-Ireland treaty
- The FTT’s findings of primary fact
- The FTT’s factual findings as to the knowledge of BLM and SICL
- The FTT’s conclusions
- The Grounds of Appeal and Respondent’s Notice
- Ground 1: meaning of Article 12(5) of UK-Ireland treaty
- The Respondent’s Notice
- HMRC’s Ground 1
- Grounds 2 to 4: introduction
- Ground 2: the FTT overlooked the UK WHT arbitrage
- Ground 3: specific errors of law in determining BLM’s purpose
- Ground 4: specific errors of law in determining SICL’s purpose
- Conclusions