Fleet v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX - claim for charitable giving relief - whether evidence of gift made by taxpayer - whether charity met the test of the Income Tax Act 2007 - whether tax return contained careless inaccuracies resulting in an understatement of liability to tax - whether penalty was due and finally calculated correctly - Sections 431 and 989 Income Tax Act 2007 and Schedule 24 Finance Act 2007) [2026] UKFTT 507 (TC) (31 March 2026)
The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence that he owned and gifted the shares to Milia, and Milia did not meet the definition of a charity under UK law. The appellant's reliance on professional advice without further due diligence, given the unusual and offshore nature of the arrangement, constituted carelessness. The penalty was correctly calculated and imposed.
- Citation
- [2026] UKFTT 507
- Parties
- Appellant: Simon Fleet; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 31 March 2026
- Procedural Posture
- Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Judgment
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- Income Tax, Charitable Giving Relief, Tax Avoidance, Penalties for Careless Inaccuracy, Burden of Proof
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Simon Fleet
Appellant
The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether there was sufficient evidence of a gift of shares by the taxpayer to a charity for the purposes of charitable giving relief under s431 ITA 2007
- 2 Whether the recipient entity (Milia Charitable Trust) met the definition of a charity under s989 ITA 2007
- 3 Whether the taxpayer's self-assessment tax return contained careless inaccuracies resulting in an understatement of tax liability
Ratio Decidendi
The appellant failed to provide sufficient evidence that he owned and gifted the shares to Milia, and Milia did not meet the definition of a charity under UK law. The appellant's reliance on professional advice without further due diligence, given the unusual and offshore nature of the arrangement, constituted carelessness. The penalty was correctly calculated and imposed.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Orders
- The appellant's appeal against the closure notice and penalty assessment is dismissed.
- The penalty assessment and denial of charitable giving relief stand as issued.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment