Share this content
12

Interesting case supports Ramsay property business

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j11322/TC07362.pdf

Didn't find your answer?

Search AccountingWEB

Helpful re s162 TCGA etc. - see para 13.

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j11322/TC0...

HMRC's bizarre "separate land plus attached income streams" counterarguments (without any proper case law support as far as I could see) were quite rightly roundly rejected by the judge.

Replies (12)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Tax Dragon
19th Sep 2019 14:14

14 years to get to FTT?!

The case refers to s152. Rollover relief needs a trade (there is no mention of trade in the judgment).

#bemused (but at the case, not Justin).

Thanks (0)
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
19th Sep 2019 15:26

More relies on Ramsay than supports.

Seems a strange case for HMRC to pursue given the operations that took place certainly would appear to be a business, nothing HMRC put forward (they really put nothing forward it appears) really disputes that argument

It to me begs the question, do HMRC staff need more real exposure to business and how business operates (Something I have believed they have lacked for years- imho they need teams of ex practice accountants and former company directors to help guide them)

Also seems a brave case to pursue in God's own country given the religion there that is cricket, if it had gone the other way they could have been run out of the kingdom.

Thanks (1)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
19th Sep 2019 15:55

14 years though. So I suspect it's inertia - someone taking on a case from someone that in turn had inherited an enquiry... and no one thought "what?!".

Kick-off [geddit?!] was long before Ramsay.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
Hallerud at Easter
By DJKL
19th Sep 2019 16:17

HMRC were certainly stumped finding a cohesive argument, they were frankly wide of the mark and now it is over. (Even up here in Scotland I played cricket at school in the 70s-very badly I hasten to add)

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
19th Sep 2019 16:28

They might go upstairs for a review.

The "trade" point seems pretty basic. Even if the company traded from a canteen or whatever, to give rollover on the whole ground seems like a googly (or wrong'un, as they say down under).

[Edit: if that's the relief that's in question. I'm still bemused by the case and the case facts.]

Thanks (0)
Replying to DJKL:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
20th Sep 2019 10:22

If a judge cites another case with approval (rather than criticizing it) it obviously supports the reasoning in that other case!

Furthermore, it shows HMRC's 20 hour a week interpretation of Ramsay is rubbish re subcontractors etc., so it supports that correct Ramsay analysis.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
20th Sep 2019 10:12

And you have the gall to describe others as muppets. Talk about getting things a**e over t*t.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
20th Sep 2019 13:14

Justin Bryant wrote:

If a judge cites another case with approval (rather than criticizing it) it obviously supports the reasoning in that other case!

Traditionally, lower courts do not criticise higher ones.

I have to concede that this is something that I have been told. I have not done my own independent research and have allowed myself to accept something someone said without personally verifying it. (What am I? 16?)

So I suppose I should applaud your seity.

I nevertheless suspect Wilson's A+T comment is about right.

Thanks (0)
Replying to Tax Dragon:
avatar
By Justin Bryant
20th Sep 2019 14:47

"It supports Ramsay property business" is what I said anyway.

So just having one BTL with an agent doing all the work s/be fine is what I obviously mean (WP is just a muppet troll who I ignore now as you know).

Thanks (0)
Replying to Justin Bryant:
avatar
By Tax Dragon
20th Sep 2019 14:55

Justin Bryant wrote:

having one BTL with an agent doing all the work s/be fine.

Provided that the BTL is a cricket ground which supports your trading activities, you may be right (although the absence of case facts - deliberate absence, because the judge did not want to lengthen the judgment with such detail - leaves me wondering what the facts were... and therefore how this case is any use to anyone).

Thanks (1)
Psycho
By Wilson Philips
19th Sep 2019 15:38

I'm not sure how the case is at all helpful with other "Ramsay" cases, ie those involving the question as to whether letting activity amounts to a business. The question in this case was simply whether the principles established in Ramsay would apply to the particular circumstances of this case. I fail to see why this case would add any weight to other cases that rely on the Ramsay principles. The simple question is - do the activities amount to a business? That question will be answered based on the merits of the case, and, in my view, the case on this thread would be of no relevance. Why does that not surprise me?

And I agree with Tax Dragon - although the Tribunal concluded that a business was being carried on they made no mention of a trade, which is a pre-requisite for s152 relief.

Edited - DJKL's first line summarises my thoughts perfectly.

Thanks (0)
avatar
By Tax Dragon
23rd Sep 2019 09:14

Croner-i's headline for this case is "Goodwill was eligible for rollover relief".

But for Justin, I would have thought "well, d'uh".

Thanks to Justin,
a) I read the Croner-i summary [I would not otherwise have bothered] and
b) what I think instead is "Croner-i doesn't understand the case either".

Thanks (0)
Share this content