Tax analysis: In Altrad Services and Robert Wiseman v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that the taxpayers were entitled to capital allowances even though these had been created by an artificial series of transactions with no business purpose, reversing the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT’s) decision that the arrangements were defeated by a Ramsay analysis.

Tax analysis: In Bilfinger Salamis UK, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the appeal by Bilfinger UK (BUK) and held that para 9 of Sch 3 to the Social Security (Categorisation of Earners) Regulations 1978, SI 1978/1689 (as it then stood), did not require any minimum level of host-employer direction or control before employees' services are 'made available' to it. The FTT erred in law in treating some direction as necessary, but that error was immaterial because the scheme still fell within the provision.

Tax analysis: In Knights Developments Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that the trading profits of the taxpayer (KDL), an Isle of Man (IoM) incorporated and resident company, from acquiring, developing and selling UK land were ‘income derived from immovable property’ under art 6 of the 2018 UK-IoM double tax treaty (DTT) (and the corresponding provisions of the amended 1955 DTT). Consequently, the UK retained taxing rights and the UT dismissed the developer’s appeal (made to the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) but transferred to the UT) and upheld the closure notices.

Tax analysis: In Scatola, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the taxpayers’ appeal against closure notices charging stamp duty land tax (SDLT) resulting from a failed avoidance scheme. It also allowed HMRC’s cross-appeal in respect of an alternative discovery assessment.

Tax analysis: In D’Angelin v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against the withdrawal of business investment relief, holding that he had breached the extraction of value rule in section 809VH of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007).

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Sonder Europe Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed HMRC’s appeal and decided that the activity of leasing residential apartments in the UK on a long-term basis from third-party landlords and letting them out on a short-term basis to travellers was outside the scope of the Tour Operators’ Margin Scheme (TOMS). It found that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) had incorrectly interpreted a condition that is in SI 1987/1806, the UK legislation known as the TOMS Order.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Yorkshire Agricultural Society [2025] UKUT 4 (TCC) (9 January 2025), the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that admission charges to the Great Yorkshire Show qualified for exemption from VAT under VATA 1994, Sch 9, Group 12, Item 1. The UT found that the event met the statutory requirements of the UK legislation when interpreted in conformity with the EU legislation it was intended to implement.

Tax analysis: In Silverdoor, the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that a credit card fee passed through to clients was ancillary to a wider reservation service and was therefore subject to VAT. It also held that the card payment facility did not in any case satisfy the conditions of the exemption for financial intermediaries.

Tax analysis: In Queenscourt Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided in favour of the supplier, that two or more elements in a meal deal cannot form a single supply while other elements in the same meal deal are separate supplies. It found that HMRC’s position was (a) not supported by any established case law, and (b) inconsistent with legal certainty and the efficient operation of the VAT system.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Gary Quillan, the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that an outstanding balance on a director’s loan account was ‘written off’ in the course of a creditors’ voluntary liquidation (CVL) of the company.

Tax analysis: In George Mantides Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that locum urology services procured by the taxpayer company from its sole shareholder and director (M) would have given rise to a contract of employment between M and the recipient hospital had M provided the services directly. Accordingly, the IR35 rules deemed the company to have paid M earnings subject to income tax and NICs.

Tax analysis: In MWL International Ltd and another v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the companies’ appeals against HMRC’s decision that Class 1A National Insurance contributions (NICs) were due in respect of cars leased by the companies and used by employees. The UT found that HMRC was not prevented by estoppel by convention from departing from a 1993 agreement that the cars were pooled cars, and that the companies could not rely on a legitimate expectation that the cars would be treated as pooled cars.