![UT/2024/000060 - [2025] UKUT 00143 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
The Claimant’s JR Claim is dismissed.
MR JUSTICE EDWIN JOHNSON
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN
Release date:
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background to JR claim
- law – summary of statutory background
- The Statement of Practice
- HMRC’s Business Brief and further exchanges
- The Decision
- Summary of Grounds
- Powers of judicial review
- Correct approach to construction of Statements of Practice
- Claimant’s Grounds of judicial review
- Discussion of Ground One
- Application of correct interpretation of example to facts
- Ground Two – application of alternative condition (dependency on discussions with inspector ongoing)
- Ground Three
- Discussion
- The Deficit Claim could not be quantified
- When it became clear foreign dividends non-exempt and that credit was for FNR
- Difficulties in establishing and agreeing FNR which applied in Claimant’s case
- Revenue’s 2020 Business Brief
- Other points
- Ground Four and Five not necessary for our decision on the claim
- Ground Four
- Error in assuming claim could be made before any closure notice brought profits into charge
- Claimant’s submissions on 2025 Post-Prudential CA
- Error of law in failing to realise claim to set off NTLRD must be quantified and claim could only be quantified once FNR agreed
- Failure to take account of relevant considerations
- Discussion
- Ground Five
- Conclusions