Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000103 - [2025] UKUT 00102 (TCC)

Fecha: 22-Ene-2025

Mr Simpson’s submissions

Mr Simpson’s submissions

268.

Mr Simpson’s submissions all related to points considered and weighed by the FTT. They included the following (in italics, followed by our view):

(1)

The FTT had refused to take into account the subsequent repayment of the loans, and it was clear from Bella Figura that this was an error of law. This misrepresents what the FTT decided, see §‎267(1) above. The FTT not only took this factor into account, but found that it was “a significant element of the test”. However, the FTT went on to find that the factor was not decisive, given that the statutory tests are to be applied when the loan is taken out, not when it is repaid. This submission is thus a disagreement about the weight to be given to the repayment of the loans and does not identify any error of law.

(2)

The FTT had failed to take into account the improvements introduced by MLT during the later part of the relevant period, in particular the move to experienced IP valuers. However, that factor was considered in the earlier section of the FTT’s consideration of s 268(7), see [158] and [167], as we noted §‎266(1); it was not ignored.

(3)

The FTT failed to take into account that MLT’s processes were “intended to be robust” albeit “inevitably, errors crept in”. The FTT did consider MLT’s processes, see [222] and our summary at §‎267(5).

269.

It is not necessary to set out the other points made by Mr Simpson in his skeleton argument and oral submissions as they too are repetitions of submissions made before the FTT all of which were considered when the FTT was carrying out its evaluation.