law – summary of statutory background
law – summary of statutory background
From 1 October 2002 to 31 March 2009, the two year limit and HMRC’s statutory discretion to extend were set out in in the s 83 Finance Act 1996. That provided as follows:
83.— Non-trading deficit on loan relationships.
This section applies for the purposes of corporation tax where for any accounting period (“the deficit period”) there is a non-trading deficit on a company’s loan relationships.
The company may make a claim for the whole or any part of the deficit (to the extent that it is not surrendered as group relief by virtue of section 403 of the Taxes Act 1988) to be treated in any of the following ways, that is to say—
to be set off against any profits of the company (of whatever description) for the deficit period;[ or]
…
to be carried back to be set off against profits for earlier accounting periods (3A) So much of the deficit for the deficit period as is not—
surrendered as group relief by virtue of section 403 of the Taxes Act 1988, or
treated in any of the ways specified in subsection (2) above, shall be carried forward and set against non-trading profits of the company for succeeding accounting periods.
…
A claim under subsection (2) above must be made within the period of two years immediately following the end of the relevant period[which, in the following subsection (7) is defined to mean the “deficit period” (which in turn is defined above at subsection (1), or within such further period as the Board may allow.
The legislation in force at the time the claim was made in March 2021 (s460 Corporation Tax Act 2009) similarly provided for a 2 year time limit after the deficit period ended, or “such further period as an officer of Revenue and Customs allows.”
- 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
![UT/2024/000060 - [2025] UKUT 00143 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png)