Tax analysis: In Equity Advisory, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) dismissed a third party’s application for the redaction of certain commercially sensitive information in the tribunal’s published decision in the underlying substantive appeal.

Tax analysis: In Scott Brothers Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) dismissed an application by the company to reinstate its appeal. The company had withdrawn its appeal following the first day of the original hearing.

Tax analysis: In Collins Construction Ltd the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) upheld the company’s claim for relief for expenditure on research and development, ruling that the restriction where expenditure is subsidised does not apply where there is a commercial contract between the parties and where there is no clear link between the price paid by the client and the expenditure on R&D.

Tax analysis: In British Institute of Technology Ltd v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) refused HMRC’s application to strike out appeals against a VAT assessment and related penalty.

Tax analysis: In BTR Core Fund JPUT, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against HMRC’s decision to reject its claim for SDLT overpayment relief under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) on the basis that the overpayment resulted from a mistake in a claim to multiple dwellings relief.

Tax Analysis: In Aesthetic-Doctor.com Ltd, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) decided that the cosmetic treatments supplied by the appellant did not fall within the concept of medical care. The FTT was not convinced that aging was a disease or that worrying about looking older was a health disorder.

Tax analysis: In Jelly Vine Productions Ltd, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) decided that a preliminary issues hearing on the validity of HMRC determinations was not appropriate, as the preliminary issue could not be entirely divorced from the other grounds of appeal.

Tax analysis: In Moffat, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the taxpayers’ claims for entrepreneurs’ relief (now business asset disposal relief) on the disposal of shares in a company did not succeed because the company was not the holding company of a trading group. The FTT, however, allowed their appeal against penalties imposed by HMRC in respect of the claims, holding that the taxpayers had not behaved carelessly.

Tax analysis: In Harber v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) held that the taxpayer did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to notify HMRC of a liability to capital gains tax (CGT). It also found that several cases cited in support of the taxpayer’s arguments had been generated by an artificial intelligence system and were not genuine FTT decisions.

Tax analysis: In Ferguson-Davie and another v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) dismissed the appellants’ appeals against assessments to capital gains tax in respect of carried interest amounts arising in the tax year ended 5 April 2016, holding that such amounts did not fall within a transitional provision and accordingly were subject to taxation under the rules for carried interest which applied from 8 July 2015.

Tax analysis: In Binoy Joseph v HMRC, the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) restricted the details which the taxpayer was obliged to provide to HMRC under an information notice. Some personal information could be redacted, and details of employment arrangements and supply chain were simplified.

Pensions analysis: The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) upheld a fixed penalty notice (FPN) from the Pensions Regulator (TPR) of £400 but revoked an escalating penalty notice (EPN) of £14,000 against the appellant company, Gianni’s Glasgow Ltd (‘the Company’) on the basis that the latter penalty was neither proportionate nor reasonable. The Company had not been aware of the failure to comply because communications had been sent to the Company’s former accountant, who had not passed on the correspondence. The Company only became aware of the penalties when TPR sent an email to the director’s personal email address, upon which it acted quickly to address matters. The FTT emphasized that the point of an escalating penalty is that it acts as an incentive, and if there is no effective communication, there is no incentive. The matter was remitted to TPR. Written by Elizabeth Grace, barrister at Outer Temple Chambers.