![UT/2024/000060 - [2025] UKUT 00143 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Ground Four
Ground Four
This Ground alleges various errors of law in the HMRC’s application of paragraph 13 and the requirement there that the application should be made “as soon as possible” and that “delay in making a late claim after the circumstances which caused the claim to be late have ceased to apply may result in the claim being rejected.”
The complaint in Ground Four is that HMRC made a series of errors in this part of the Decision. The alleged errors are divided into three parts or categories.
- 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