![[2025] UKUT 00005 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied any of the grounds advanced disclose any arguable error of law in the FTT Decision.
Permission to appeal is therefore refused.
Signed: Date: 9 January 2025 SWAMI RAGHAVAN JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL |
Issued to the parties on: 10 January 2025 |
- 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