Tax analysis: In Pitt, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against penalties under the follower notice regime.

Tax analysis: In Lee and another, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed HMRC’s appeal against the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) decision that a couple were entitled to full private residence relief on the sale of a house which they had constructed on land which they bought several years before moving in. The UT held that the ‘period of ownership’ for the purposes of the relief referred to the period of ownership of the house rather than the land.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Christian Peter Candy, the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that the taxpayer was not prevented from claiming stamp duty land tax (SDLT) overpayment relief under paragraph 34 of Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 2003 (FA 2003) merely because a claim for repayment under FA 2003, s 44(9) was out of time.

Tax analysis: In Mullens, the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered whether HMRC had met the burden of proof when making discovery assessments and associated penalty assessments concerning a series of large payments that had been received by the taxpayer. It held that HMRC had met the burden of proof and dismissed the appeals.

Tax analysis: In Walkers Snack Foods Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) agreed with the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) and HMRC that a product known as Sensations is a similar product to potato crisps and is made from the potato because the potato includes potato granules.

Tax analysis: In R (oao Midlands Partnership University NHS Foundation Trust), the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that the Trust was making supplies in the course or furtherance of a business activity when it provided health services to local authorities. It came to this decision after finding that the activity resulted in consideration and was carried out for the purpose of obtaining income. It also found that the supply of services by the Trust was not subject to a special legal regime.

Tax analysis: In Muller UK and Ireland Group LLP and others v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered an appeal against a decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) that amortised depreciation debits in respect of intangible assets transferred by corporate members to an LLP were correctly disallowed by HMRC on the basis of the related party exception within section 882 of the Corporation Tax Act 2009 (CTA 2009). The UT dismissed the appellants’ appeals.

Tax analysis: In Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appellant’s appeal against a First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) decision that certain aesthetic, skincare and wellness treatments provided by a qualified doctor were not exempt supplies of medical care for VAT purposes. The UT held that the FTT erred in law by placing no weight on consultation records as evidencing diagnoses of recognised health disorders. The UT remitted the case to the FTT to be remade.

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected a taxpayer’s application for permanent anonymity, following the taxpayer's decision to withdraw their substantive appeal with the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The UT further granted a third party limited access to the FTT’s previous case management decision. The UT’s decision emphasises the importance placed on open justice and highlights the court and tribunals’ reluctance to permit anonymity in litigation. Written by Helen McGhee, Partner, and Megan Durnford, Associate, at Joseph Hage Aaronson LLP.

Tax analysis: In Medpro Healthcare Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed an appeal against a First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) decision to refuse permission to commence late appeals against penalties and personal liability notices. The UT found that the FTT had erred in law and remitted the case to be heard again by a differently constituted FTT.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Root2 Tax Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) upheld the First-tier Tribunal’s (FTT) decision that HMRC’s application for a penalty to be imposed on the promoter of a DOTAS scheme was made after the statutory time period had elapsed.

Tax analysis: In Bridgecom, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed Bridgecom International Ltd’s (BIL’s) appeal against an adverse costs decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT).