Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000031 - [2024] UKUT 00168 (TCC)

Fecha: 13-Mar-2024

Conclusions

Conclusion and disposition

129.

We have rejected each of the Appellant’s grounds of appeal and the appeal must be dismissed. There was no material error of law made by the FTT in a Decision which was carefully and conscientiously constructed. The FTT Decision is confirmed.

JUDGE RUPERT JONES

JUDGE ASHLEY GREENBANK

RELEASE DATE: 12 June 2024

Heading
Introduction
Grounds of Appeal
Factual findings of the FTT
The Law
Discussion and Analysis
Ground 3 - the FTT erred in concluding that “the amount payable on the transfer” as found in paragraph 14A(3) Schedule 13 FA 1996 was a commercial concept ([166] and [171]), with “transfer” to be give
Our Analysis
Our Analysis
In my judgment
The principle is twofold; and it applies to the interpretation of any statutory provision
Ground 2 – the FTT erred in concluding that it was bound by Berry v HMRC [2011] STC 1057 ([157]) given that the approach of Lewison J (as he then was) in Berry was inconsistent with the correct approa
The Appellant’s argument
Our Analysis
The principles that I derive from Berry are therefore as follows
The FTT stated at [176]
Conclusions