Tax

Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP v Revenue & Customs

[2011] UKFTT TC TC01256First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2011

Get the AI brief for this case

Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.

Quick orient — first passages from judgment

Expert evidence � application for a direction to exclude expert evidence � whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special expertise of the Tribunal � whether decision as to admissibility of the evidence should be a case management matter or deferred until the hearing of the appeal � questions as to admissibility and weight to be attributed to evidence admitted to be determined following hearing of the appeal � application refused

Jolyon Maugham, counsel, instructed by Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer for the Appellant

Rajesh Pillai and Rebecca Murray, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP (�E35�) is a limited liability partnership which is appealing against a decision of The Commissioners For Her Majesty�s Revenue and Customs (�the Commissioners�) that, in the tax year ended 5 April 2007, E35 was not carrying on a trade of exploiting film rights, or if it was carrying on such a trade, it was not doing so with a view to profit.� That appeal has been listed for hearing before us for thirteen days beginning on 13 July 2011.�

We heard E35�s application on this matter at a lengthy hearing with full arguments from each party.

Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.

Read the full judgment elsewhere

Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.

More Tax cases

Wood & Anor v Revenue and Customs (Stamp Duty Land Tax - rate of SDLT applicable - whether Table A or Table B - whether the house and land included land that was not residential property - whether all of land was, or formed part of, grounds of house - Finance Act 2003, ss 55, 116)

[2026] UKFTT TC 265

New Claire Wine Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Discovery assessments - extended time limit assessments - penalty for inaccuracy in a return - deliberate inaccuracy - whether deliberate inaccuracy necessarily involves dishonesty - whether HMRC required to specifically plead and prove dishonesty - whether the FTT erred in failing to explain how the appellant's conduct might not involve dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 116

Trees v Revenue and Customs (VAT - penalties - director's liability notice (DLN) - section 60 and 61 VATA 1994 - Kittel appeal in 2020 - HMRC expressly not pleading dishonesty)

[2026] UKUT TCC 92

Alesen Direct Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Company undertaking construction work; VAT assessment; hardship application; company made advances to related entities/persons; hardship denied)

[2026] UKFTT TC 398

Rodrigues v Revenue and Customs

[2026] UKUT TCC 75

Lawrence Rawlinson v The Commissioners for HMRC

[2026] UKFTT 45 (TC)

Common Room

Discussion

0 comments · About the Common Room →

No comments yet — start the discussion.

Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.

This case is reproduced verbatim from the public judgment published by The National Archives under the UK Government's Open Government Licence v3.0. If you appear in this case and believe it should not be published — for example because your conviction was quashed on appeal, you have statutory anonymity, or for other privacy reasons — request removal here.

Tax