10 June 2026
In Herrmann v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2026] UKFTT 715 (TC), the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) held that one must consider whether the tax “remains unpaid” on the relevant day or whether the appellant has “failed to pay” the tax by the particular date.
3 June 2026
In Queenscourt Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2026] UKUT 195 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal held that every supply (including elements within a multiple supply) should be treated as separate and distinct unless one of the exceptions (CPP or Levob) apply to treat the whole transaction as a single supply.
18 May 2026
In HC-One No 1 Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2026] UKFTT 678 (TC), the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) held that arrangements for the solvent liquidation of a holding company to preserve SDLT group relief is not tax avoidance (such that SDLT group relief is not precluded).
12 May 2026
In Clearwater Hampers Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2026] UKFTT 567 (TC), the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) held that the lidded basket served the purpose of presenting and protecting the food and drink supplies in a way commensurate with their value, size, and weight, and was merely ancillary to the principal supply.
9 May 2026
The Parker v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2026] UKFTT 652 (TC) case highlights the importance of understanding how days are counted for the purposes of the SRT, and the potential risks of spending “one day too many” in the UK.
30 April 2026
In Innovative Bites Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2026] UKFTT 500 (TC), the First-Tier Tribunal had to determine whether giant marshmallows were “normally eaten with the fingers”, with “normally” meaning more than 50% of the time.
2 April 2026
This case deals with gifts out of income (s. 21, IHTA 1984) and gifts to political parties (s. 24, IHTA 1984). However, we are only considering the gifts out of income point in this case, as it is the interesting tax technical point.
5 March 2026
In Assem Allam v Revenue and Customs [2020] UKFTT 0026 (TC), the First-Tier Tribunal (“FTT”) held that the appellant’s disposal of shares in Allam Developments Ltd did not qualify for Entrepreneurs’ relief (now Business Asset Disposal Relief (“BADR”)) as Allam Developments Ltd was not a trading company.
