UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000113 - [2025] UKUT 00165 (TCC)
Fecha: 08-Abr-2025
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
References in square brackets [] are to paragraph numbers in the FTT Decision unless stated or context requires otherwise.
The factual and procedural background to the appeals were set out in the Decision at [6]-[24]. It is necessary to recite the most relevant findings as follows:
“7. As we have mentioned, the [share] loss for which relief was claimed by Mr Murphy arose from his participation in a tax avoidance scheme [Excalibur].
…
10. On 13 October 2006, Mr Murphy submitted his tax return for the tax year 2005/6 online (Footnote: 1). The return included:
in Box 18.3, the amount of £179,063.62 as total tax due for that year;
in Box 18.8, a figure of £183,140.43 as “Any 2006-2007 tax you are reclaiming now”;
in Box 23.9 (the “white space”), an explanation of the entry in Box 18.8 in the following terms:
Box 18.8 - This refers to a tax credit arising on a loss from 2006/07 and claimed against income in 2005/06 under s574 ICTA. I claim under TA 1988 s574(1)(b) that an amount equal to the amount of the loss to be set against my income for 2005/06 but not, for the avoidance of doubt, set against my income for 2006/07. The loss is calculated as follows Sales Proceeds 24.22 Less Cost 763,763.98 Loss 763,739.76.
The figure at Box 18.8 was not taken into account in the calculation of the total tax entered at Box 18.3 because the on-line form populated the box automatically and did not take into account the relief claimed under section 574 ICTA. Mr Murphy did not disclose the DOTAS reference number of the scheme in his return.
In a letter dated 28 February 2007, HMRC gave notice to Mr Murphy of their intention to enquire into Mr Murphy’s claim under section 574 ICTA. The notice was given under paragraph 5 of Schedule 1A to the Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA”) on the basis that the claim had been made “outside of a return”. The letter was headed “Enquiry under Paragraph 5 Schedule 1A Taxes Management Act 1970 – 2006/7”. The letter stated:
Thank you for your tax return for the year ended 5 April 2006.
I am writing to tell you that I intend enquiring into your Return. My enquiry will cover your claim under Section 574 Income Corporation Taxes Act 1988.
The letter later continued:
Your claim has been made outside of a return and is, therefore governed by Schedule 1A TMA 1970. Para 5 of Schedule 1A allows for enquiries to be made into claims.
A letter of the same date to Mr Murphy’s agent, Eaton & Co, confirmed that an enquiry was being opened under paragraph 5 Schedule 1A TMA.
On 31 January 2008, Mr Murphy submitted his tax return for the tax year 2006/7. This return was also submitted on-line. In that return:
in Box 18.8, the total tax due was shown as £144,587.12;
Box 23.9 contains the following additional information:
“During the tax year a loan that I received from Rose Harbour (BVI) Ltd was released at the discretion of the Board of that company. The loan was from a non-close and non resident company of which I was not a shareholder. The release does not give rise to a taxable receipt. During the tax year I gifted my entire shareholding in Harbour Trading Plc to Change4Change, a UK registered charity….”
the capital gains pages show that shares in Harbour Trading Plc were acquired on 13 July 2006, and sold for £24 on 25 July 2006, generating a loss of £763,740.00, which appears in Box 8.2;
Box 8.13B of the capital gains pages shows losses of £763,739 “claimed against income of 2005-06”;
in Box 8.22 of the capital gains pages, Mr Murphy entered the following additional information in the “white space”:
“Additional Information: The shares in Harbour Trading Plc were originally subscribed for by me and then disposed of to a third party, Braye Finance Limited, for there (sic) full market value. Pursuant to an option agreement entered into with Braye Finance Limited, the shares were then sold back to me, within 30 days of the disposal. As a result of the share identification rules, the reacquisition of these shares generated a capital loss of 763,739.76. Claim for loss against the year ended April 5th 2006 was made on the return of income and submitted to the revenue on October 13, 2006”.
Once again, Mr Murphy did not disclose the DOTAS reference number of the scheme in his return.
In a letter dated 20 May 2008, HMRC gave notice of intention to an enquire into Mr Murphy’s return for the tax year 2006/7. A letter from HMRC to Mr Murphy’s then agent, Meager Wood Locke & Co, of the same date confirms that the notice was given under section 9A TMA.
In a letter dated 31 July 2008, Mr Murphy’s agent advised HMRC of the DOTAS scheme reference number in relation to the claim for relief under section 574 ICTA.
…
On 19 April 2017, the First-tier Tribunal issued a decision in Kerrison v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 322 (TC), in which the Excalibur scheme was considered and the appeal against the refusal of the taxpayer’s claims for relief were dismissed. On 22 January 2019, the Upper Tribunal dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal (Kerrison v HMRC [2019] UKUT 0008 (TCC)).
On 25 July 2019, HMRC issued two closure notices to Mr Murphy.
The first was intended to be a closure notice under paragraph 7 Schedule 1A TMA in respect of the claim for relief under section 574 ICTA denying Mr Murphy relief under that section. The notice stated:
Check of your claim for the year ended 5 April 2007
I have now completed my check of your claim for the year shown above.
My conclusion
•The total capital loss claimed in the sum of £763,740.00 is not allowable.
•The claim to set £48,244.79 of that capital loss against 2005-2006 income, is not allowable.
•Your claim showed that a credit was due to you of £134,895.64
•My check has shown that the actual credit due was £0.00
•The difference is £134,895.64.
…
The second was intended to be a closure notice under section 28A TMA in respect of the enquiry into the return for the tax year 2006/7. The notice stated:
Information about our check of your Self-Assessment tax return for the year ended 5 April 2007
I have now completed my S9a check of your Self-Assessment tax return for the year shown above. This letter is a Closure Notice issued under Section 28A (1) & (2) Taxes Management Act 1970.
My conclusion
The capital loss claimed in the sum of £763,740.00 is not allowable.
I have amended your tax return in line with my decision.
The amount of tax you self-assessed for the year 2006-2007 has not changed.
The claim to set £763,739.00 of that capital loss against 2005-2006 income, is not allowable.
Your claim showed that a credit was due to you of £48,244.79.
My check has shown that the actual credit due was £0.00.
The difference is £48,244.79.
…
The figures in the closure notices regarding the amount of the credit claimed by Mr Murphy were plainly wrong. The amount of share loss relief claimed by Mr Murphy was £183,140.43 and he had sought to set that full amount against his income for the tax year 2005/6 under section 574 ICTA.
Mr Murphy did not understand the notices that had been sent to him. He requested advice from his solicitors, Reid & Co in an email dated 29 July 2019. Reid & Co. wrote to HMRC on 16 September 2019. In that letter, Reid & Co. argued, inter alia, that Mr Murphy’s claim to carry-back losses under section 574 ICTA was included in the return for the tax year 2005/6 and so any enquiry into that claim should have been made under section 9A TMA. The enquiry under paragraph 5 Schedule 1A TMA was invalid and so the purported closure notice was also invalid.
Reid & Co also wrote to HMRC on 16 October 2019. In that letter Reid & Co. reiterated their argument that the notice of intention to enquire into Mr Murphy’s claim under section 574 ICTA under paragraph 5 Schedule 1A TMA was invalid. Reid & Co. also argued that the closure notices did not meet the test set out in Raftopoulou v HMRC [2018] EWCA Civ 818 (“Raftopoulou”) at [20] and [36] and so were invalid.
Following correspondence between Reid & Co. and HMRC, Mr Murphy appealed against both closure notices on 28 November 2019, with the agreement of HMRC notwithstanding that the appeals were in strict terms out of time.
In a letter dated 14 January 2022, HMRC confirmed their view of the position and offered a review, which was accepted by Mr Murphy. The review was completed on 30 May 2022. In a letter of that date, HMRC varied the closure notices in the following terms:
in relation to the closure notice given under paragraph 7 Schedule 1A TMA:
Closure of Enquiry under Sch1A TMA 1970
My conclusion
The total capital loss claimed in the sun of £763.740.00 is not allowable.
The claim to set £180,40.43 (sic) of that capital loss against 2005-2006 income is not allowable.
Your claim showed that a credit was due to you of £183,140.43
My check has shown that the actual credit due was £0.00
The difference is £183,140.43.
in relation to the closure notice for the tax year 2006/7 issued under section 28A TMA:
Closure of s9A Enquiry into 06/07 Return
The capital loss claimed in the sum of £763.740.00 is not allowable. The amount of tax that you self-assessed for the year 2006-2007 has not changed.
The claim to set £763,739.00 of that capital loss against 2005-2006 income is not allowable.
Your claim showed that a credit was due to you of £0.00
My check has shown that the actual credit due was £0.00
The difference is £0.00.
…”
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE FTT DECISION
- THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THE UPPER TRIBUNAL
- THE HEARING
- FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- FIRST SHARE LOSS RELIEF ISSUE The FTT identified the first issue in the following terms at [48(1)]
- The Law
- Schedule 1A to this Act shall apply as respects any claim or election which—
- Section 42(2) of this Act shall not apply in relation to the claim The claim shall relate to the later year
- the claim does not have to be made in the return (paragraph 2(2))
- for both tax years
- Otherwise the claim must specify either the year of the loss or the previous tax year
- This subsection explains how the deductions are to be made
- If an individual—
- Case law
- Section 42(2) of this Act shall not apply in relation to the claim The claim shall relate to the later year
- Derry SC
- There were two issues before the Court
- Outline of the Appellant’s case
- Discussion and Analysis
- Prior to the ITA all loss relief claims under ICTA were to be made or treated in a similar way – Schedule 1B TMA applied There is no doubt that Schedule 1B TMA applied to trade loss relief claims made under s.380 ICTA
- The ITA made a limited but material change in the law from ICTA on share loss relief claims
- Appellant’s other arguments considered
- Summary
- Conclusion
- SECOND SHARE LOSS RELIEF ISSUE
- The Law
- An officer of the Board may enquire into— a claim made by any person, or
- Cotter
- Derry CA
- Derry SC
- HMRC’s case in outline
- The present case should have been distinguished on its facts from Derry CA The Appellant’s case in outline
- Discussion and Analysis
- Derry CA not binding: the ordinary rules of precedent
- Distinguishing Derry CA
- Remaking
- THE CLOSURE NOTICE ISSUE
- The Law
- state that in the officer's opinion no amendment of the claim is required, or
- A closure notice takes effect when it is issued…”
- Case law
- Outline of the Appellant’s case
- Discussion and Analysis
- Conclusions