Henderson v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX - returns from share transactions - whether trading activity) [2023] UKFTT 281 (TC) (08 March 2023)

Henderson v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX - returns from share transactions - whether trading activity) [2023] UKFTT 281 (TC) (08 March 2023)

The Tribunal found that Mr Henderson's share transactions did not amount to a trade, as the activities were more consistent with managing a portfolio of investments rather than trading. The number and frequency of transactions, time spent, lack of organisation, and absence of a commercial approach did not displace the presumption against trading. Consequently, loss relief was not available.

Citation
[2023] UKFTT 281
Parties
Appellant: Nicholas Henderson; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 March 2023
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Closure Notices (income Tax) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Trading Activity, Loss Relief, Share Transactions
Tax Law Income Tax Trading Activity Loss Relief Share Transactions

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Henderson

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Closure Notices (income Tax) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's share transactions constituted a trade for income tax purposes
  2. 2 Whether the activity was carried on commercially as required for loss relief

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that Mr Henderson's share transactions did not amount to a trade, as the activities were more consistent with managing a portfolio of investments rather than trading. The number and frequency of transactions, time spent, lack of organisation, and absence of a commercial approach did not displace the presumption against trading. Consequently, loss relief was not available.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed