Ground 2
Ground 2
Here, the claimant submits HMRC failed to apply (or failed to apply correctly) the alternative condition in paragraph 10 of the SP that the amount of profit depended on discussions with an inspector which were not complete when the time limit had expired. The decision of 5 January 2024 failed to apply this. The alternative condition envisaged the situation here where both HMRC and claimant were awaiting the outcome of the FII litigation to understand what the correct taxation position for foreign dividends was. HMRC’s defence is that the claimant has misconstrued the alternative condition; the legal challenge to the tax treatment of dividends could not be described as “discussions with an inspector”. The claimant knew the amount of dividends/profits it had, that HMRC considered them taxable and the amount of profits when the question was settled by the FII litigation in 2018.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- Claimant’s Grounds of judicial review and HMRC’s defence
- Ground 1
- Ground 2
- Grounds 3-5
- HMRC Officer Ms Murphy’s 23 August 2024 Witness Statement
- Legal principles
- The disclosure sought and outline of parties’ submissions
- Discussion
- Inconsistencies mean disclosure appropriate?
- Whether disclosure necessary to resolve issues fair and justly in relation to issues raised
- Conclusions
![UT/2024/000060 - [2024] UKUT 00315 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)