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

The FTT began its consideration of Criticall by recognising that (a) the IP was “a specific piece of software” and thus dissimilar to the other types of IP for which valuation had been disputed by HMRC, and (b) Mr Asher was a professional valuer with extensive experience in valuing IP. The FTT then said:

“[212] On that basis, it is tempting to conclude that in this instance at least, MLT were acting reasonably in assuming that no unauthorised payment had been made. The alternative, and our preferred analysis, is that MLT behaved no differently for this Employer than for any other and were simply fortunate to find a relatively experienced valuer for a type of IP which is more straightforward to value.

[213] We say this because we saw no evidence that the sign off process was any different in this case than in others:

The findings of fact which underpin paragraph [213] are set out earlier in this decision at §§74-75 and were not challenged by MLT as part of this appeal.