Manduca v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 234 (TC) (17 April 2013)

Manduca v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 234 (TC) (17 April 2013)

The settlement sum was a reward for the appellant's role in enabling Dexia to acquire the OEF business from Tilney, not a capital sum for the sale of a business or intangible asset. The appellant and Mr de Jerez did not own the business or assets transferred, and the payment was not for the abandonment of a personal connection as in Hose v Warwick. The procedural argument also fails as closure notices can amend the return as a whole.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 234
Parties
Appellant: Philip Manduca; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
17 April 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Closure Notice (tax) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Capital Gains Tax, Capital Allowances, Employment Income, Closure Notice, Schedule D Case VI, Schedule E, Business Asset Taper Relief
Tax Law Income Tax Capital Gains Tax Capital Allowances Employment Income Closure Notice Schedule D Case VI Schedule E +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Philip Manduca

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal Against Closure Notice (tax) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the settlement sum received by the appellant was a capital sum subject to capital gains tax or income assessable under Schedule D, Case VI
  2. 2 Whether HMRC was out of time to make an assessment under Schedule D, Case VI

Ratio Decidendi

The settlement sum was a reward for the appellant's role in enabling Dexia to acquire the OEF business from Tilney, not a capital sum for the sale of a business or intangible asset. The appellant and Mr de Jerez did not own the business or assets transferred, and the payment was not for the abandonment of a personal connection as in Hose v Warwick. The procedural argument also fails as closure notices can amend the return as a whole.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.