In Samarkand Film Partnership No 3 v HMRC (and related appeals) (TC 01453 – 24 October) two partnerships claimed that they had incurred substantial losses from the sale and leaseback of films.
HMRC rejected the claims on the grounds that the partnerships had not been trading. The partnerships appealed.
The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed the appeals declining to follow the CA decision in Micro Fusion 2004-1 Llp v HMRC ([2010] STC 1541) on the grounds that the legislation at issue in that case had specifically referred to a ‘trade or business’ rather than simply to a trade.
Judge Hellier held that the partnerships were not trading and that ‘the partners were not entitled to sideways loss relief because the businesses of the partnerships were not...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Samarkand Film Partnership No 3 v HMRC (and related appeals) (TC 01453 – 24 October) two partnerships claimed that they had incurred substantial losses from the sale and leaseback of films.
HMRC rejected the claims on the grounds that the partnerships had not been trading. The partnerships appealed.
The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the evidence in detail and dismissed the appeals declining to follow the CA decision in Micro Fusion 2004-1 Llp v HMRC ([2010] STC 1541) on the grounds that the legislation at issue in that case had specifically referred to a ‘trade or business’ rather than simply to a trade.
Judge Hellier held that the partnerships were not trading and that ‘the partners were not entitled to sideways loss relief because the businesses of the partnerships were not...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
