Tax analysis: In R on the application of Rettig Heating Group UK Limited (in liquidation), the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered an interlocutory application for disclosure made against HMRC in connection with ongoing judicial review proceedings. The UT refused the application on the basis that the required disclosure was not necessary to fairly and justly resolve the issues in dispute.

Tax analysis: In St Patrick’s International College Ltd and others v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that the supplies of education in dispute did not qualify for exemption from VAT. It found that Group 6, Schedule 9 Part 1 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994) is compatible with the EU legislation from which it is derived and that, although there are multiple possibilities for exemption within Group 6, none of them applied to the supplies in dispute.

Tax analysis: In The Taxpayer and others, the Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected the taxpayer’s application for anonymity as no clear and cogent evidence justifying exclusion from the principles of open justice had been demonstrated.

Tax analysis: In Basic Broadcasting Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed HMRC’s appeal and remitted the case back to the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) for reconsideration on the basis that the latter had not fully applied the Court of Appeal decision in Atholl House.

Tax analysis: In Barclays Bank PLC v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed Barclays Bank PLC’s (BBPLC’s) appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) that BBPLC was not entitled to tax deductions under the loan relationship rules for accruing discount on reserve capital instruments (RCIs) it had issued. The UT held that the FTT’s conclusion that £3 billion was paid only for the RCIs was not necessarily wrong, but its evaluative reasoning was materially affected by errors of law. The UT’s decision does not on its own resolve the corporation tax result; instead, it remitted the case to the FTT for reconsideration.

Tax analysis: In UBS, the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered a judicial review challenge to HMRC’s decision not to exercise its discretionary power to relieve the company, UBS, of its PAYE obligations in respect of employment income arising to a former employee from security options. The UT found that HMRC had misdirected itself in law when making its decision, and ordered that it remake its decision in the light of such findings.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Brzezicki, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed HMRC’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) and held that the residential rates of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) applied to the purchase of a house and land.

Tax analysis: In Lycamobile UK Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) upheld the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) and found that VAT should have been accounted for on the full amount payable for mobile phone plan bundles at the time the supplier received the consideration, rather than when they were used, as the supply was the right to use the plan bundles.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Healthspan Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed HMRC’s appeal relating to the extent to which a supplier of food supplements was permitted to adduce expert evidence to support its case in a VAT dispute. The UT agreed with HMRC that the expert evidence must be restricted to what is reasonably required to resolve the issue.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that payments made by a supplier to a customer only represented a price reduction for VAT purposes to the extent that the payments related to supplies made directly to that customer (the final consumer in that supply chain). Payments made to the same customer in relation to supplies made to other customers in the supply chain did not represent a price reduction for VAT purposes because (a) there was no direct link between the payments and specific supplies, (b) there was no relationship of reciprocal performance, and (c) the payments were not made to the final consumer. The UT found that the final consumer is not necessarily the party that bears the cost.

Tax analysis: In O’Neil and others v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the appeals of three individuals against discovery assessments charging the receipt of a redress payment for mis-selling of a financial product to income tax as a post-cessation receipt. The UT also upheld an inaccuracy penalty charged on one of the appellants.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Ducas Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed HMRC’s appeal against the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) case management directions, which included a direction requiring HMRC to disclose documents in its possession or control which supported the taxpayer’s case or undermined HMRC’s case but no equivalent direction for the taxpayer. Rejecting HMRC’s argument that the FTT had erred in law by not imposing a reciprocal obligation, the UT found that there was no general principle of reciprocity and that the FTT had not acted irrationally.