Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2022-0000150 - [2024] UKUT 00254 (TCC)

Fecha: 10-Jul-2024

Motive?

Motive?

174.

In coming to the above findings, we have not ignored Mr Winter’s submission that the Tribunal could not conclude that Mr Kalaris had given dishonest, misleading, incomplete and/or partial replies to the Questions because:

“there simply is no motive established about why Mr Kalaris would be
trying to pretend [the ASA and the capital raising] are coincidental events when they are obviously not.”

175.

However, that submission was based on Saranac’s case that at the time of the 2013 Interview the Authority already knew the ASA was connected to the capital raising exercise. We have already found as a fact that this was not the position, see §120 to §127.

176.

We instead agree with Mr Stanley that, on the balance of probabilities, Mr Kalaris’s motive was to give the Authority the impression that the ASA was not “tightly coupled” to the capital raising. That is consistent with:

(1)

our finding that the Authority did not know, at the time of the 2013 Interview, that the ASA and the capital raising were “factually connected” and a “single package”;

(2)

our finding that Mr Kalaris did not believe the Authority to have that knowledge;

(3)

Mr Kalaris’s reply to Q1, in particular his reference to “separate paths”; and

(4)

his reply to Q4, in which he stated there was “no connection” between the two.