Partridge v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 828 (TC) (20 August 2014)

Partridge v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 828 (TC) (20 August 2014)

The appellant was not entitled to repayment of tax for 2006/07 as there was no evidence any tax was paid or suffered, and the claim was procedurally defective. No credit or repayment was due for corporation tax paid by the appellant's company in 2008/09 and 2009/10, as this was not income tax suffered by the appellant. The correct amount of tax owed for 2009/10 was the appellant's figure, as accepted by HMRC, following the disallowance of certain expenses.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 828
Parties
Appellant: John Partridge; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 August 2014
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed on two issues and allowed on a third issue with HMRC's agreement.
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Self Assessment, Overpayment Relief, Employment Status, Corporation Tax, Trading Loss, Director's Fees
Tax Law Income Tax Self Assessment Overpayment Relief Employment Status Corporation Tax Trading Loss Director's Fees

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 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

John Partridge

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was entitled to repayment of tax allegedly suffered in 2006/07
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to credit or repayment for corporation tax paid by his company in 2008/09 and 2009/10
  3. 3 Whether the correct amount of tax owed for 2009/10 was the appellant's or HMRC's figure

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was not entitled to repayment of tax for 2006/07 as there was no evidence any tax was paid or suffered, and the claim was procedurally defective. No credit or repayment was due for corporation tax paid by the appellant's company in 2008/09 and 2009/10, as this was not income tax suffered by the appellant. The correct amount of tax owed for 2009/10 was the appellant's figure, as accepted by HMRC, following the disallowance of certain expenses.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed on two issues and allowed on a third issue with HMRC's agreement.

Orders

  • No repayment or allowable loss is due to the appellant for 2006/07.
  • No credit, deduction, or repayment is due to the appellant for corporation tax paid by his company in 2008/09 and 2009/10.