Tax

Ebsworth v Revenue & Customs (Rev 1)

[2009] UKFTT TC TC00152First-tier Tribunal (Tax)2009

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

Note 2 see Lord Upjohn on necessary inference in Brebner 43 TC 718 quoted below at 46 [Back]

Note 4 cf Ebrahamini v Westbourne Galleries [1973] AC 360. No point as to liquidation and failure of substratum was taken by either side. [Back]

Note 5 This seems necessary to make sense of the paragraph. It seems to be a slip � hence the correction. [Back]

Note 6 The Statement of Agreed Facts says �[12] As from 31 October 2001 WorldCom terminated its agreement with BSAS1 in return for the balloon payment�. It is hard to see how that was to continue. This was compounded by WorldCom�s financial situation. [Back]

Note 7 I believe it would be here but it was not specifically said to be the case by Counsel so it is not recorded as such. It was the basis on which the argument was conducted. Mr. James accepted that the onus was on the appellant to prove its case but it was for the respondents to show that there was a tax advantage by the reason of the transaction in securities. Mr. Nawbatt did not dissent. [Back]

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