Tax analysis: In Hastings Insurance Services Limited v HMRC, the First-Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed the appellant’s appeal against HMRC’s decision to refuse its claim for the recovery of input tax relating to the periods from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2022 (the Disputed Periods). The FTT found that during the Disputed Periods, Article 169(c) of EC Directive 2006/112, had direct effect and that the input tax in question was attributable to supplies made by the appellant to a customer established in Gibraltar (Advantage Insurance Company Ltd (Advantage)).

Tax analysis: In The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1163 (TC) (23 December 2024), the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) allowed the taxpayer’s claim for plant and machinery allowances for expenditure on constructing a quay wall as part of the development of a new port terminal in Liverpool.

Tax analysis: In UK Funerals On-Line Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found that supplies concerning the repatriation of the remains of deceased persons qualified for the zero rate of VAT within Group 8, Items 5 and 10 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994).

Tax analysis: In Harris v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) considered an application for costs by a taxpayer which followed HMRC’s decision not to oppose his appeal against a closure notice. The FTT held that the taxpayer was entitled to reasonable costs to be determined on the standard basis, by way of a detailed assessment if the parties could not agree on the amount.

Tax analysis: In Innate-Essence Limited (t/a the Turmeric Co), the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) decided that a turmeric shot sold by the taxpayer qualified for the zero rate of VAT as a food product and was not a standard-rated beverage.

Tax analysis: In Mainpay Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) found that travel and subsistence expenses paid by an umbrella company to workers it contracted and supplied via employment agencies were subject to tax. Each separate assignment (however short) involved travel to a permanent workplace and so the expenses could not be deducted from payments made to the workers.

Tax analysis: In Syngenta, the FTT dismissed Syngenta Holdings Ltd’s (SHL) appeal against closure notices denying corporation tax deductions for loan interest on the basis that SHL was party to the loan for an unallowable purpose.

Tax analysis: In Poznic, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the taxpayer’s disposal of B ordinary shares did not qualify for business asset disposal relief (BADR). The taxpayer had not produced cogent evidence to rebut company records consistently recording that the shares carried no voting rights.

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf Ltd, the First-Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the stamp duty land tax (SDLT) was chargeable on the transfer of the lease of a residential property development within a group in circumstances where the transfer was part of a corporation tax scheme.

Tax analysis: In Lloyds Asset Leasing, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against HMRC’s disallowance of its cross-border group relief claim. The FTT found that the qualifying loss and precedence conditions in sections 119 and 121 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010) were satisfied in respect of the claim, however the relief was denied under CTA 2010, s 127 as the FTT found that it would not have arisen but for arrangements that had a main purpose of securing that relief.

Tax analysis: In Eyre, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the appellants were not entitled to entrepreneurs’ relief on disposals of shares in a property company. Although the company was preparing to carry on a trade, its activities during the relevant period included, to a substantial extent, non-trading activities. As such, it was not a ‘trading company’ for the purposes of the relief.

Tax analysis: In Eyre and others v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the appellants were not entitled to entrepreneurs’ relief on disposals of shares in a property company. Although the company was preparing to carry on a trade, its activities during the relevant period included, to a substantial extent, non-trading activities. As such, it was not a ‘trading company’ for the purposes of the relief.