Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber
UT (Tax & Chancery) UT-2024-000113 - [2025] UKUT 00165 (TCC)
Fecha: 08-Abr-2025
THE HEARING
THE HEARING
Mr Grierson of counsel appeared for the Appellant at the hearing on 8 April 2025. Mr Carey and Mr Way of counsel appeared for HMRC. We are grateful to each of them for their written and oral submissions.
During the hearing, we requested that HMRC should thereafter provide a comparative table setting out ss.380 & 574 ICTA and ss.131-133 ITA. This was provided on 14 April 2025 following the hearing. Mr Grierson objected that the table also included the provisions of paragraph 2, Schedule 1B TMA and we have excluded that part from our consideration.
- 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