Tax analysis: In HMRC v The Taxpayer, the Upper Tribunal (UT) upheld HMRC’s appeal against the First-tier Tax Tribunal’s (FTT) case management direction that preliminary proceedings in the taxpayer’s appeal be held in private.

Tax analysis: In Circleplane Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) struck out an appeal against a decision of a judge of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) not to recuse herself from hearing the appellant’s appeal. It also rejected an application for its decision to be anonymised.

Tax analysis: In Gwyn-Jones v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal against a decision of the First-Tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) granting HMRC permission to amend its statement of case in an appeal against a closure notice. The amendment was to include a request for the FTT to vary the taxpayer’s self-assessment to include an income tax liability in respect of a foreign dividend which had not been included in the closure notice.

Tax analysis: In Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited, the Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected an appeal against a First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) decision holding that an HMRC VAT assessment was not made out of time under the one-year evidence of facts rule.

Tax analysis: In Nellsar, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed both parties’ appeals and affirmed the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). In the context of acquiring care homes as a going concern, the purchase price should, on the basis of accounts compliant with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), be allocated to the care home properties using market value rather than depreciated replacement cost (DRC) for the purposes of corporation tax relief on amortisation of goodwill under the intangible fixed assets (IFA) regime and for the purposes of SDLT.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Peter Gould, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed HMRC’s appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) that an interim dividend was ‘paid’ for income tax purposes in the 2016-17 tax year when it was received by the shareholder.

Tax analysis: In Burlington, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed HMRC's appeal, finding that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) was entitled to come to the decision that the anti-abuse provision (employing a main purpose test) in the UK-Ireland double tax treaty (DTT) did not apply. Although Burlington, an Irish tax resident company, had purchased the debt claim from the liquidators of SICL (a Cayman Islands company which did not benefit from any exemption from UK withholding tax), the FTT had not made an error of law in deciding that neither party had a main purpose of taking advantage of the withholding tax exemption provided by the UK-Ireland DTT. Consequently, Burlington benefited from the exemption in the DTT and was entitled to a repayment of the UK income tax withheld from the payment of UK source yearly interest made by Lehman Brothers International (Europe) (LBIE), a UK tax resident company.

Tax analysis: In Edward Cumming-Bruce v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) found that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) had not made an error of law in deciding that HMRC had correctly enquired into the taxpayer’s claim for capital losses. The UT agreed that the capital loss claims were not stand-alone claims, but formed part of the self-assessment return, meaning that HMRC had been correct to enquire into those losses under section 9A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970).

Tax analysis: In Beard, the Upper Tribunal (UT) confirmed the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) that distributions received by the taxpayer were (i) dividends for UK tax purposes but (ii) not dividends of a capital nature for the purposes of section 402(4) of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 (ITTOIA 2005).

Tax analysis: In Mathur, the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) did not err in law in deciding that a payment made to the appellant, Ms Mathur, by her former employer in settlement of Employment Tribunal proceedings was subject to income tax as employment income under section 401(1)(a) of the Income Tax (Earnings and Pensions) Act 2003 (ITEPA 2003).

Tax analysis: In Tower One St George Wharf, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal and found that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) had not erred in law in concluding that SDLT group relief was not available on an intra-group transfer because that transfer formed part of arrangements of which one of the main purposes was the avoidance of a liability to corporation tax.

Tax analysis: In Mainpay, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the taxpayer’s appeal and upheld the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) that the taxpayer company’s reimbursement of travel and subsistence costs to workers it contracted and supplied via employment agencies was subject to tax. The FTT had made no error of law, including in deciding that each separate assignment (however short) involved travel to a permanent workplace, which resulted in the expenses not being deductible from earnings for the purposes of PAYE and National Insurance contributions (NICs).