Thomas William Good v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2021] UKUT 0281 (TCC)
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Mr Justice Michael Green,Judge Thomas Scott |
| Neutral Citation | [2021] UKUT 0281 (TCC) |
| Subject Matter | 18 November 2021 |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Published date | 24 November 2021 |
[2021] UKUT 0281 (TCC)
Appeal number: UT/2020/0052
INCOME TAX – tax scheme relating to film distribution rights – whether
non-trade business of exploiting films – taxation of Minimum Annual
Payments under scheme and whether taxpayer entitled to such payments –
whether loan interest payments deductible – whether statutory conditions for
discovery assessments satisfied – appeal dismissed
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER)
THOMAS WILLIAM GOOD
Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER
MAJESTY’S
REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
TRIBUNAL:
MR JUSTICE MICHAEL GREEN
JUDGE THOMAS SCOTT
Sitting in public by way of video hearing treated as taking place in London on 27
to 29 April 2021 with further written submissions from the parties received on 29
September 2021
Rupert Baldry QC, instructed by Ian Walker Tax LLP, for the Appellant
Aparna Nathan QC, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM
Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
2
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2021
DECISION
Mr Thomas Good (“Mr Good”) appeals against the decision of the First-tier
Tribunal (the “FTT”) reported at [2020] UKFTT 0025 (TC) (the “Decision”). The
FTT determined that Mr Good was liable to income tax on certain payments
received under a scheme for the exploitation of film rights in which he had
participated, that he could not deduct from those receipts interest payments and
other expenses for income tax purposes and that he was not entitled to reduce his
taxable income with brought forward losses. The FTT also decided that the
discovery assessments issued by HMRC to Mr Good were not invalid on the
grounds of staleness, and that they otherwise satisfied the relevant statutory
conditions.
Mr Good appeals against all of these decisions.
Procedural history
Before the FTT, Mr James Ryan was also an appellant and the Decision dealt
with Mr Ryan’s appeal in the same way. Mr Ryan withdrew his appeal from the
Decision on 14 April 2021, and we do not deal in this decision with any issues
relating to Mr Ryan.
Permission to appeal against the Decision was granted by the FTT as regards
some issues and by this Tribunal as regards others. As we describe below, not all
of the grounds for which permission was granted were pursued before us.
On 13 April 2021 there was a case management hearing lasting a day. At that
hearing, the appellants made late applications for directions (1) ordering HMRC to
disclose various documents relating to the film scheme which had not been sought
by the appellants before the FTT and (2) vacating the scheduled hearing date and
staying the appeal behind the decision of the Supreme Court in HMRC v Tooth.
Judge Scott refused both applications.
On 11 May 2021 we issued directions permitting the parties to make further
submissions in relation to the relevance to the issues arising in the appeal of the
decisions in (1) Bostan Khan v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ 624 (“Khan”), released
on 30 April 2021 (2) HMRC v Tooth [2021] UKSC 17 (“Tooth”), released on 14
May 2021 and (3) Ingenious Games LLP and Ors v HMRC [2021] EWCA Civ
1180 (“Ingenious Games”), released on 4 August 2021. Further submissions were
received from the parties on 29 September 2021, which we have taken into account
in reaching our decision.
Background
In the tax year 2007/08 (“Year One”) Mr Good entered into a scheme (the
“Scheme”) designed by Scion Structured Products Ltd (“Scion”).
To continue reading
Request your trial