Taxpayer lost and the result & analysis looks right.
I guess there was lots of tax at stake, so worth a go!
Your rational tax URL is a redirect that, for me at least, triggers an anti-virus warning.
And me (although the preview suggests that the site is OK)
Not sure this qualifies as interesting. Any other result would have been interesting, but incorrect.
It's interesting to see who doesn't find it interesting (of course it's interesting as RT says and I've been to tax seminars on this complex area and have seen much debate on this very issue)!
Reminds me of Greycon Ltd v Klaentschi (2003) SSCD 370 life policies taken out on the life of a director as a requirement to guarantee bank borrowings was for a capital purpose and therefore not taxable as part of the trading profits.
Funny, didn't you say the result of the tribunal was the right one?
You do yourself too much credit.
It is an interesting case, but not because it is wrong (which I think it is). It is interesting because it is one of the very few cases that deals with the treatment of derivatives in relation to an individual not a corporate. The Gadhavis v HMRC  UKFTT 600 (TC) was another such case and is related to this one, but in the Gadhavis the ‘capital’ point was not run.
I think it is wrong because the compensation is for a capital item, not a revenue one. That is because the costs of a 5 year swap are capital on the clear authority of, especially, Pattison v Marine Midland Ltd (1983) 57 TC 219 , F W Woolworth Ltd v Beauchamp (Inspector of Taxes) (1989) 61 TC 542 and European Investment Trust Co Ltd v Jackson (1932) 18 TC 1. The reason why interest on a 5 year loan is not prohibited as capital is s 29 ITTOIA. But that does not apply to any other costs of finance. Thus the Donald Fisher principle does not apply.