![UT/2024/000060 - [2025] UKUT 00143 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Heading
Case Number: UT/2024/000060
Rolls Building
7 Rolls Buildings
Fetter Lane
London
EC4A 1NL
JUDICIAL REVIEW – HMRC’s refusal to exercise discretion to extend time, in relation to a claim to set off NTLRD against profits that arose from the Claimant’s dividend income from a foreign subsidiary received in accounting period ended 31 December 2002 – whether HMRC misinterpreted or misapplied Statement of Practice (05/01) and whether HMRC refusal irrational – no – claim dismissed
Written submissions received on 25 February and 14 March 2025
Judgment date: 6 May 2025
Before
MR JUSTICE EDWIN JOHNSON
UPPER TRIBUNAL JUDGE SWAMI RAGHAVAN
Between
THE KING (on the application of)
RETTIG HEATING GROUP UK LIMITED
(IN LIQUIDATION)
Claimant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Defendants
Representation:
For the Claimant: Michael Firth KC, counsel, instructed by Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP
For the Defendants: Malcolm Birdling and Laura Ruxandu, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
DECISION
- 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