![UT/2024/000060 - [2025] UKUT 00143 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Summary of Grounds
Summary of Grounds
The five grounds upon which the Claimant has permission to bring this judicial review may be summarised as follows:
Ground One argues that HMRC misinterpreted the SP (in particular Example One – company unaware of profits against which it could claim relief).
Ground Two argues that HMRC failed to apply or correctly apply the alternative condition (Example Two – amount of profits depended on discussions with inspector which were not complete as at expiry of time limit).
Ground Three argues that HMRC reached irrational conclusion on the application of both of the alternative cases (i.e. Examples One and Two) in the SP and the overall application of the SP.
Ground Four argues that HMRC erred in law in concluding that the Deficit Claim could/should have been made earlier than it was and/or failed to take into account relevant considerations.
Ground Five argues that HMRC reached an irrational decision as to whether the Deficit Claim had been made as soon as possible and/or whether to reject the Deficit Claim on the ground of delay after the circumstances which caused the Deficit Claim to be late ceased.
- 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