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

Ground 1 – the FTT erred in concluding (i) that Campbell v IRC [2004] STC (SCD) 396 (‘Campbell’) was central to the Appellant’s case ([112]), (ii) that Campbell was the authority most relied upon by the Appellant ([170]), and (iii) that the dispute between the parties in their construction of the meaning of “loss from the discount on a strip” under sub-paragraph 14A(1) Schedule 13 of the Finance Act 1996 (“FA 1996”) exemplified the commercial/legal dichotomy in Campbell ([157]).

Ground 2 – the FTT erred in concluding that it was bound by Berry v HMRC [2011] STC 1057 (‘Berry’) ([157]) given that the approach of Lewison J (as he then was) in Berry was inconsistent with the correct approach to statutory construction explained in UBS.

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 given a wide practical meaning ([167(1)]).

Ground 4 – the FTT erred in rejecting the relevance of the extra statutory materials on which the Appellant relied as an aid to statutory construction and, in particular, in seemingly relying on Investors Compensation Scheme v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1WLR 896 in so doing ([176]).