Nigel Alexander Moore v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 518 (TC)
A judicial ruling is 'relevant' under s205(3)(b) FA 2014 if its principles or reasoning, when applied to the taxpayer's arrangements, would deny the asserted tax advantage.
Finance Act 2014, sections 204, 205, 208, 214
HMRC must have an opinion that there is no scope for a reasonable person to disagree that the earlier ruling denies the taxpayer the advantage (Haworth).
R (on the application of Haworth) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2021] UKSC 25
'Principles laid down, or reasoning given' in a judicial ruling may include factual findings (Haworth). The realistic view of facts involves assessing facts in light of the statutory provision’s purpose (UBS AG v HMRC).
Haworth, UBS AG v HMRC [2016] UKSC 13
In assessing the relevance of a judicial ruling, a comparison of primary facts alone is insufficient; the application of the ruling's principles and reasoning to the taxpayer's facts requires judgment on material facts.
This case's judgment
Appeal dismissed.
The FTT correctly considered 'post-Ramsay' facts (evaluative conclusions and inferences drawn after a purposive interpretation of the legislation) in determining the relevance of Audley. The legislation doesn't exclude such facts from the analysis. The FTT's approach was consistent with the statutory requirement to determine whether the principles and reasoning in Audley, when applied to Mr. Pitt's arrangements, would deny the asserted tax advantage.
[2024] UKFTT 518 (TC)
[2024] UKFTT 126 (TC)
[2023] UKUT 296 (TCC)
[2023] UKUT 265 (TCC)
[2024] UKUT 203 (TCC)