Conclusions
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, we reject Mr Tenconi’s ground of appeal. He has not shown the FTT erred in law in concluding he had made a disposal for CGT purposes of the beneficial interest in the distribution rights in MAH. (We ought also to mention that, following the circulation of the draft of this decision to both parties for typographical corrections, Mr Tenconi made a number of substantive submissions. While we have considered those, they, in essence, in our view, simply reiterate the points Mr Tenconi had already made before us and which we have rejected for all the reasons set out above. In particular, the points assumed, contrary to what we have held above regarding the scope of permission to appeal in the light of the finality of the Upper Tribunal’s refusal of permission on certain grounds, that it was permissible for him to argue that incorporeal rights could not be assets subject to CGT and therefore could not be disposed of.)
The appeal is accordingly dismissed.
JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN
JUDGE VIMAL TILAKAPALA
Release date: 01 May 2024
![UT/2021/000157 - [2024] UKUT 00110 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)