![UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000031 - [2024] UKUT 00168 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2023-000031 - [2024] UKUT 00168 (TCC)
Fecha: 13-Mar-2024
Discussion and Analysis
Discussion and Analysis
In relation to each ground, we will consider the FTT’s Decision, the Appellant’s arguments and then our analysis. We do not repeat the submissions on behalf of HMRC because we agree with and adopt much of Mr Davey KC’s argument in our analysis below.
It is convenient to deal with the grounds of appeal by beginning with Ground 3 because this addresses the key dispute as to the correctness of the FTT’s statutory construction and application to the facts of the case.
- 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