Branagan v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 1100 (TC) (16 December 2014)

Branagan v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 1100 (TC) (16 December 2014)

Intelligent Risk Limited did not satisfy the 'qualifying trading company' test because, until July 2005, its purpose was to become a mortgage lender, which is a proscribed activity. After July 2005, there was no evidence it existed wholly for the purpose of carrying on a qualifying trade. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to relief under section 574 ICTA.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 1100
Parties
Appellant: Ian Branagan; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 December 2014
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Relief for Loss on Disposal of Shares, Qualifying Trading Company, Negligible Value Claim
Tax Law Income Tax Corporation Tax Relief for Loss on Disposal of Shares Qualifying Trading Company Negligible Value Claim

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ian Branagan

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Intelligent Risk Limited satisfied the 'qualifying trading company' test under s.576(4) ICTA
  2. 2 Whether IR existed throughout the relevant period wholly for the purpose of carrying on one or more qualifying trades under s.293 ICTA
  3. 3 Identification of the 'relevant period' for the purpose test

Ratio Decidendi

Intelligent Risk Limited did not satisfy the 'qualifying trading company' test because, until July 2005, its purpose was to become a mortgage lender, which is a proscribed activity. After July 2005, there was no evidence it existed wholly for the purpose of carrying on a qualifying trade. Therefore, the appellant is not entitled to relief under section 574 ICTA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • No relief granted under section 574 ICTA
  • No funds for distribution to shareholders