Gripple Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2010] EWHC 1609 (Ch) (30 June 2010)

Gripple Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2010] EWHC 1609 (Ch) (30 June 2010)

The sums recharged by Loadhog to Gripple in respect of Mr Facey's services were not 'staffing costs' within the meaning of Schedule 20, paragraph 5(1) of the Finance Act 2000, as they were not emoluments paid by Gripple to Mr Facey. The statutory requirements for R&D tax relief were not satisfied, and there was no basis to lift the corporate veil or treat the companies as a single entity for the purposes of the relief.

Citation
[2010] EWHC 1609 (Ch)
Parties
Appellant: Gripple Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
30 June 2010
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From General Commissioners to High Court (chancery Division)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Research and Development Tax Relief, Corporation Tax, Interpretation of Fiscal Legislation, Corporate Group Structures
Tax Law Corporate Law Research and Development Tax Relief Corporation Tax Interpretation of Fiscal Legislation Corporate Group Structures

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gripple Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (case Stated) / Appeal From General Commissioners to High Court (chancery Division)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether payments made by Gripple Limited to Loadhog Limited for R&D services provided by Mr Facey constitute 'staffing costs' under Schedule 20 to the Finance Act 2000, entitling Gripple to enhanced R&D tax relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The sums recharged by Loadhog to Gripple in respect of Mr Facey's services were not 'staffing costs' within the meaning of Schedule 20, paragraph 5(1) of the Finance Act 2000, as they were not emoluments paid by Gripple to Mr Facey. The statutory requirements for R&D tax relief were not satisfied, and there was no basis to lift the corporate veil or treat the companies as a single entity for the purposes of the relief.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Gripple Limited's appeal is dismissed.