Tax analysis: In Jumpman Gaming Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the appeal of the taxpayer (Jumpman), an operator of online gaming platforms, concerning remote gaming duty (RGD) on promotional free spins. Neither the initial free game nor the further free spins won from it attracted RGD.

Tax analysis: In Mark Glenn Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that supplies to women suffering hair loss could be zero rated under Group 12 Item 3 of Schedule 8 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994), as severe hair loss in women constituted a disability.

Tax analysis: In Irish Bank Resolution Corporation Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKUT 277 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the taxpayers’ appeal, finding that the UK-Ireland double tax treaty (the DTT) did not prevent HMRC from denying interest deductions to the UK permanent establishments (PEs) of two Irish companies. The DTT could be complied with in a number of ways, and the UK’s rules on the attribution of capital were one of those permitted ways.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Bolt Services UK Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that the services concerned fell within the scope of the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) because it found that they were of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents and the supplier had not materially altered or further processed the services.

Tax analysis: In PD & MJ Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the company’s appeal, holding that the IR35 intermediaries legislation applied to arrangements under which the company supplied the services of former footballer Phil Thompson to Sky TV as a pundit.

Tax analysis: In Barclays Services Corporation & another v HMRC [2026] UKUT 211 (TCC) (8 June 2026), the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that Barclays Services Corporation (BSC) was not entitled to join the VAT group of which Barclays Execution Services Ltd (BESL) was the representative member. The UT found that, at the time of the VAT grouping application, the fixed establishment in the UK condition was not met and that even if it had been met, HMRC was entitled to refuse the application for the protection of the revenue.

Tax analysis: In Watts, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal, confirming that a scheme intended to create a substantial income tax loss from transactions in gilt strips without incurring an equivalent economic loss did not work.

Tax analysis: In Haworth, the Upper Tribunal (UT) concluded that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) had made no error of law in the test it had applied to identify the place of effective management of certain family trusts for the purposes of the UK/Mauritius treaty.

Tax analysis: In Sintra Global, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) insofar as it related to a notice HMRC had issued to an individual making him liable for the payment of a civil evasion penalty charged against a company he was a director of. The UT found that the FTT had failed to follow the guidance provided by the Court of Appeal in Pegasus Birds in relation to the assessment the penalty was based on.

Tax analysis: In CATS North Sea Limited v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that the deemed separate trade created by section 279 of the Corporation Tax Act 2010 (CTA 2010) applies across the corporation tax code, including the capital allowances regime, and is not confined to the computation of ring-fence profits. Consequently, the trade transfer provisions in CTA 2010, Pt 22 applied only to the part of Amoco’s ring-fence trade that remained ring-fence activities in CATS North Sea Ltd (CNSL), significantly reducing the balancing charge. The decision clarifies the wider effect of statutory deeming provisions and has important implications for oil and gas groups undertaking intra-group reorganisations, particularly where transfers may alter the ring-fence status of activities or affect capital allowances and balancing charges. Produced in partnership with Jake Landman of Pinsent Masons.

Private Client analysis: The case involved an appeal against a decision made by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) regarding a tax planning scheme known as the ‘round the world’ scheme. The scheme aimed to avoid CGT on share disposals by ensuring the place of effective management (POEM) of family trusts was in Mauritius, under the UK/Mauritius double tax treaty residency tiebreaker. The FTT, applying the approach from the Smallwood case, concluded that the POEM of the trusts was in the UK due to key management decisions being made there. The appellants argued that the FTT misapplied Smallwood and should have used the Wood v Holden test. However, the Upper Tribunal (UT) disagreed, affirming that the FTT's approach was correct. They ruled that the FTT appropriately considered the POEM test from Smallwood and that there was no error of law. Written by Jacob Ashforth, solicitor at Burges Salmon.

Tax analysis: In Tajinder Pawar v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) set aside the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) decision refusing permission for a late appeal against a Personal Liability Notice (PLN), as it found that the FTT had erred in its weighting of the need to respect time limits when applying the third-stage balancing exercise test set out in Martland. On remaking the decision, it dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal.