Tax analysis: In HMRC v S&L Barnes Ltd, the Upper Tribunal (UT) overturned the decision of the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) and allowed HMRC’s appeal, holding that the intermediaries legislation (IR35) applied to a personal service company which supplied the services of former rugby international player Stuart Barnes (B) to Sky TV as a co-commentator and pundit.

Tax analysis: In Delphi Derivatives Ltd (in liquidation) v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed the company’s appeals against inaccuracy penalties under Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 2007 (FA 2007). The UT accepted that the inaccuracies were not caused by carelessness, and, in one case, that the inaccuracy was not deliberate.

Property Disputes analysis: The judgment considers the statutory test for a ‘self-contained part of a building’ contained in section 72(3)–(4) of the Commonhold and Leasehold Reform Act 2002 (CLRA 2002), and in particular what constitutes a ‘vertical division of the building’. Written by Sonia Rai, barrister at Five Paper, who acted on behalf of Rockwell (FC103), instructed by JB Leitch.

Pensions analysis: Mr Trachtenburg (‘A’) appealed against the decision of the FTT, upholding HMRC’s assessments under section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970), charging him to income tax under sections 208 and 209 of the Finance Act 2004 (FA 2004). The sole issue was whether HMRC have power to issue assessments under TMA 1970, s 29. A contended: First, that the pension provisions in FA 2004 were comprehensive, the TMA 1970 does not enable HMRC to assess in the in the absence of any express application by FA 2004, s 255 or regulations issued under it, put beyond doubt by section 255(3)(b), which states that regulations under section 255 ‘may…provide for the application of any provision of the Tax Acts (with or without modification)’, unnecessary words otherwise; and Parliament had left it to HMRC to implement the necessary regulations, but they had failed to do so. Second, that TMA 1970, s 29 did not apply to income tax under FA 2004, ss 208 and 209, which did not charge income tax ‘for a year of assessment’. The Upper Tribunal (UT) rejected these arguments and dismissed the appeal. Written by Rebecca Murray, barrister at Devereux Chambers.

Local Government analysis: In UW v Cheam Academies Network, the Upper Tribunal (UT) considered whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had jurisdiction to hear a claim of failure to make reasonable adjustments in relation to a school's behaviour policy, in the context of disability discrimination proceedings arising from detentions, fixed-term exclusions and a permanent exclusion of a disabled pupil. The UT held that the duty to make reasonable adjustments under section 20 of the Equality Act 2010 (EqA 2010), read with paragraph 2(4) of Schedule 13, does apply to the operation and application of a school's behaviour policy, including in relation to detentions and exclusions, and that the FTT had erred in holding otherwise. The UT further held that the duty extends to the act of exclusion itself. Written by Philip Wood, partner at Browne Jacobson.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v Sehgal, the Upper Tribunal (UT) found the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) had erred in law when it made its decision that arrangements under which the taxpayers settled a debt indemnity arising from a share sale did not give rise to a remittance to the UK. However, despite that finding, on a correct analysis, the UT agreed with the final result of the FTT’s decision, and therefore dismissed HMRC’s appeal.

Tax analysis: In WTGIL Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that VAT was not recoverable in relation to costs incurred by an insurance intermediary that installed telematics devices in cars. This was because the costs were not attributable to a taxable supply made for consideration.

Property Disputes analysis: Cain Ormondroyd, barrister at Francis Taylor Building, says the fact that the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) (UTLC) took a wide view of the obligations of an expert in relation to success-related fees has caused some concern among expert witnesses and their employers.

Tax analysis: In HMRC v GCH Corporation Ltd and others, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed HMRC’s appeal against the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT)’s decision that a limited liability partnership was carrying on a business with a view to profit (within the meaning in section 59A(1) of The Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992 (TCGA 1992)), such that no chargeable gains arose on the transfer of loan notes to it. The UT also upheld the FTT’s decision that the relevant HMRC officer had made a valid ‘discovery’ for the purposes of section 29 of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970).

Tax analysis: In Mudan and another v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) dismissed the taxpayers’ appeal, holding that their purchase of a property was chargeable to SDLT at the residential rates despite the taxpayers’ submission that considerable work was needed to make the property suitable for use as a dwelling.

Tax analysis: In R (on the application of Rettig Heating Group UK Ltd (in liquidation)) v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that HMRC lawfully refused the taxpayer’s claim to set off a non-trading loan relationship deficit (NTLRD) against profits for an accounting period that ended more than 18 years before the claim was made.

Tax analysis: In Investment and Securities Trust Ltd v HMRC, the Upper Tribunal (UT) decided that the taxpayer company’s purchase of an option to buy a residential property did not qualify for property development relief from the higher rate of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) for high-value residential property transactions by companies. However, the company’s holding of the option qualified for the equivalent relief from the annual tax on enveloped dwellings (ATED).