Background
Background
The applicant, Frances Delaney, applies to the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery) (“UT”) for permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (“FTT”) (Tribunal Judge Amanda Brown KC and Tribunal Member Julian Sims released on 11 March 2024 (“the FTT Decision”) and published as Delaney v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 214 (TC)following a hearing which took place on 14-15 November 2023.
The FTT subsequently refused Ms Delaney permission to appeal. Ms Delaney then renewed her application to the UT. I refused permission to appeal on the papers in a decision of 27 September 2024 that was sent to the parties. This is my decision following the oral renewal of the application heard on 22 November 2024. Ms Delaney was represented by Mr Roaul Downey, a barrister, but who represented Ms Delaney in his personal capacity as Ms Delaney’s partner. HMRC, represented by Mr Charles Asuelimen, litigator, attended but did not make representations.
The FTT Decision concerned the applicant’s appeal against an HMRC closure notice. This refused her claim for Entrepreneur’s relief on capital gains tax charged on the disposal of her nursery school business, on 1 September 2015, to a limited company which she was the sole director and shareholder of. (The Entrepreneur’s Relief, if allowed would have charged tax at the lower rate of 10% rather than 28%. HMRC’s refusal had the effect of increasing the applicant’s tax liability by £196,902.) Under the terms of the relevant statutory provisions in the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (“TCGA 1992”) (as amended by Finance Act 2015), eligibility for the relief depended on the contract giving rise to disposal being made before 3 December 2014. The FTT was not satisfied such contract for disposal was made before that date. It accordingly dismissed the appeal.
- Heading
- Background
- Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- Grounds of appeal and Decision
- Ground 1 – Error in recourse to burden of proof and Ground 2 - Error in considering that the appellant had to show there was an enforceable contract for the business transfer prior to 3 December 2014
- Ground 3 – Error in holding that relevant contract under s28 TCGA had to be unconditional or legally enforceable
- Ground 4 – The FTT failed to focus on the conduct from which the necessary contract had to be implied instead focussing on whether the conduct justified the implication of a term of sufficient certain
- Ground 5 – FTT wrong to apply legal principles as to whether there was a valid contract
- Ground 6 - No evidence for conclusion certain matters were preparatory steps and inconsistency with other findings
- Ground 7 - FTT’s decision to dismiss appeal was perverse in absence of positive case by HMRC and lack of evidence for the dates relied on in HMRC’s decision
- Conclusions
![[2025] UKUT 00005 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)