Judge here uses obiter comments of another FTT judge to conclude on "main or one of the main" purposes test, when there is a HoL decision, Brebner*, staring him in the face as to the proper test. He also refers to irrelevant looking W&E case law for his reasoning. Fortunately (as there was presumably £10ms tax at stake) he gets the correct result nonetheless. Just shows what a complete lottery tax litigation is.
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2020/TC07920.html
* Oddly he only took account of this case on the question of whether the test is subjective or objective and seems to have ignored the rest of it.
[Edit 11.11.20] Update: I've just had an email from the editor of a well respected legal publication who agrees it's a badly written judgment, especially para 121 (which I agree is mostly gobbledegook non-sequiturs).
Replies (9)
Please login or register to join the discussion.
I disagree. It is not a bad judgment, and certainly not "really bad".
I assume you agree that [115] of the decision is correct, and is the foundation for John Brooks' finding at [121]. [115] is based on a binding and entirely relevant (because it is about the LR unallowable purpose rule) decision, that of the CofA in TDS. Lo and behold the passage John quotes from TDS at [109] describes Brebner and applies it as relevant.
There is no reason then to specifically refer to Brebner as the basis for the decision.
He does not rely on Tony Beare's case as the basis of his decision on unallowable purpose, but as a decision on apportionment.
His reliance on Mallalieu is perfectly correct and relevant as to the scope of a subjective purpose test.
She doesn't say it's wrong, only impractical.
That's a decent summary of 38% of UK tax law (and that figure trends up, not down).