Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

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

Fecha: 22-Ene-2025

Submissions and our conclusions

Submissions and our conclusions

147.

Mr Simpson sought to challenge the FTT’s finding of fact at [44] which we set out at §‎131 above, on the basis that reliance should have been placed on:

(1)

the wording of the valuation provided by Valuation Consulting;

(2)

the evidence given by Mr Carwithen and Mr Dowding; and

(3)

the evidence in Mr Kilmister’s witness statement that the IP used in the transaction was “our website and the goodwill surrounding it”.

148.

There is no evidence that Mr Kilmister had seen the valuation, and we have already found that the FTT was entitled to place no weight on the evidence given by Mr Carwithen and Mr Dowding. On the third point, as Mr Kilmister had passed away before the hearing, he was unable to be cross-examined on his witness statement, and the FTT was therefore entitled to place no weight on it.

149.

In conclusion, these submissions do not meet the threshold set by the case law for challenging a finding of fact.

150.

However, on the question of law, the FTT recorded that the Fraser Contract was a carbon copy of the Langford Contract, other than that the parties and the loan amount was different. On that basis, our conclusions are the same, and we must also remit the issue of whether the loan to Fraser was an unauthorised payment and any consequences flowing therefrom relating to the scheme sanction charge.