Reddleman Properties Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 395 (TC) (15 June 2011)
DECISION
1. The
Appellants (“RPL”) appealed against a Closure Notice and Amendment to its
Corporation Tax Return for the year to 31 December 2008. The effect of the
Amendment had been to charge RPL’s profits at the full rate of Corporation Tax on
the basis that RPL was a Close Investment Holding Company (“CICH”), thereby
increasing the liability to tax from £18,852.62 to £25,889.76. Having
considered the circumstances in full, the Tribunal dismisses the appeal.
2. The
Notice of Appeal had been lodged on behalf of RPL on 20 September 2010. A
Statement of Case was lodged by HMRC, and the Appeal was set down for Hearing at
Wick on 3 June 2011.
3. HMRC
lodged with the Tribunal a bundle incorporating inter alia all the documents on
which each party intended to rely.
4. The documents in the bundle were as follows:-
(1)
the Closure Notice dated 7 September 2010
(2)
Notice of Appeal dated 20 September 2010
(3)
RPL’s Tax Return for year to 31 December 2008
(4)
RPL’s Accounts for years to 31 December 2003 – 2010
(5)
Summary of RPL’s letting income
(6)
HMRC Statement of Case
(7)
Correspondence between RPL and HMRC
(8)
Particulars and Statement re purchase of property in Inverness
(9)
Extracts of relevant legislation
(10)
Report – Cook v Medway Housing Society Ltd 69 TC 319
(11) Report – Herts
Photographic Bureau Ltd v HMRC [2010] UKFTT 629 (TC)
(12) Extracts
from Oxford Dictionaries and Chambers 21st Century Dictionary
(13) HMRC
Guidance Manuals
5. In
the course of the Hearing, Mr Walker also produced:
(A) RPL
projected 2011 gross rental income
(B) RPL company
assets at 1 January 2008
6. Mr
Walker and Mrs Carney addressed the Tribunal. In the course of Mr Walker’s
submissions, he provided certain evidence (which was not in dispute) but he was
not cross-examined by Mrs Carney. Mrs Carney did not lead any evidence for
HMRC.
Material Facts
7. The
material facts, which were not in dispute, were as follows:-
(1)
RPL was incorporated in August 2000. The
Directors are Mr Walker and his wife, and between them, they own the whole
share capital of the company.
(2)
In December 2000, RPL purchased its first
commercial property at 15 Princes Street, Thurso. This property comprised two townhouses. The ground floor of one
of the townhouses and the whole of the upper floor of the property was let to the
firm of Reid & Fraser, of which Mr Walker was a partner. The other partner was a Mr Grant.
(3)
Two shops occupied
the ground floor of the other townhouse at 15 Princes Street. One of the shops has been continuously
let to a hairdressing business.
The other shop was also let.
(4)
In May 2002 RPL purchased a second commercial
property, at 92 High Street, Wick. This property was let in its
entirety to the firm of Reid & Fraser.
(5)
In June 2003 the
company purchased a third commercial property, in John o’Groats. This
property was a tourist information
centre and was let to Visit Scotland.
(6)
Over the period
from 2001 to 2003, RPL made an
unsuccessful bid for an industrial unit at Wick Airport and two unsuccessful
offers to buy holiday letting cottages in Caithness. In November 2003 RPL also
made an unsuccessful attempt to purchase a house in the Black Isle which was to
have been used for furnished holiday letting.
(7)
In May 2004 firm of Reid & Fraser incorporated its trade into a limited company under the name of Reid & Fraser Ltd. Throughout,
Reid & Fraser Ltd has been owned by Mr Walker and his wife. Mr Grant did not take any financial interest in the new company
and he retired from the business
shortly after its incorporation.
(8)
The tenancy of the
offices at 15 Princes Street, Thurso and 92 High Street, Wick passed to Reid &
Fraser Ltd on the incorporation of that company.
(9)
In 2005, the tenant vacated the other shop at 15 Princes Street, and from then until 2011 the shop was occupied rent free by an
unconnected party, who runs a Christian bookshop on a not-for-profit basis. The
notional annual income of this shop would have been about £4,500 to
£5,000.
(10) There were no further property transactions in the period from 2004
to 2007. Over the period from around 2005 to 2008 the
Directors of RPL used the rental
income to reduce the company’s debt; and funds in the company began to
accumulate from around 2008.
(11) In January 2008, RPL had a monthly
equivalent rent of £1,800 from each of the two offices occupied by Reid & Fraser Ltd, £425 from the
hairdresser’s shop and £517 from the tourist
information centre.
(12)
In February 2008, RPL sold the tourist information centre following an approach from the sub-tenant.
(13)
During the years
2005 to 2010, the directors of RPL viewed several residential properties in Inverness but did not put in any offer as they considered that the market conditions were
not right. In 2009 and the early part of 2010 the directors looked at 3 or 4 small commercial properties in Edinburgh but did not
make any offer as the rental yield was below expectation.
(14)
In June 2010 RPL bought a new-build residential apartment at 9 Castlefield Apartments in
Inverness; and in
March 2011 RPL purchased a commercial property at 46 Church Street, Inverness. Until this most recent purchase, the rent received from Reid & Fraser Ltd represented more than 50% of
the rental income of RPL.
Legislation
8. The
relevant provisions of the Income and Corporation
Taxes Act 1988 (“ICTA”) are as follows –
13 Small companies' relief
(1) Where in any accounting period the
profits of a company which (a) is resident in the United Kingdom, and
(b) is
not a close investment-holding company (as defined in section 13A) at the end of that period,
do not
exceed the lower relevant maximum amount, the company may claim that the
corporation tax charged on its basic profits for that period shall be
calculated as if the rate
of corporation tax (instead of being the rate fixed for companies generally)
were such lower rate (to be
known as the "small companies' rate") as Parliament may from time to
time determine.
…………………………………………
13A Close investment-holding
companies
(1) A close company is for the purposes of
section 13(1) a "close
investment-holding company" unless it complies with subsection (2) below.
(2) A company ("the relevant
company") complies with this subsection in any accounting period if
throughout that period it exists wholly or mainly for any one or more of the
following purposes -
(a) the purpose of carrying on a trade or trades on a commercial basis,
(b) the purpose of making investments in
land or estates or interests in land in cases where the land is, or is intended to be, let to
persons other than
(i) any person connected with the relevant
company, or
(ii) any person who is the spouse or civil partner of an individual connected with the relevant company, or is a relative, or the spouse
or civil partner of a relative, of
such an individual or of the spouse
or civil partner of such an
individual,
(c) the purpose of holding shares in and
securities of, or making loans to, one or more companies each of which is a qualifying company
or a company which,
(i) is under the control of the relevant
company or of a company which has control of the relevant company, and
(ii) itself exists wholly or mainly for the
purpose of holding shares in or securities of, or making loans to, one or more qualifying companies,
(d) the purpose of co-ordinating the
administration of two or more qualifying companies,
(e) the purpose of a trade or trades
carried on on a commercial basis by one or more qualifying companies or by a company which has
control of the relevant company, and
(f) the purpose of the making, by one or
more qualifying companies or by a company which has control of the relevant
company, of investments as mentioned in paragraph (b) above.
(3)
.................................
(4) …………………..
(5) In this section
"control"
shall be construed in accordance with section 416, and
"relative"
has the meaning given by section 839(8).
(6) Section 839 shall apply for the purposes of
this section.
Submissions
9. Mr Walker submitted that RPL was not
a CIHC as defined in s13A of the ICTA 1988 and
in view of the level of profits for the year, was entitled
to apply the small company rate of tax to its profits in the corporation tax period ended 31 December 2008. He referred
specifically to ss(2)(b) of s13A which
states that a company is not a close investment holding company if "in any accounting
period...throughout that period...it exists wholly or mainly for the purpose of making investments in land...where
the land is, or is intended to be, let to persons other than any person connected with the relevant
company". Mr Walker maintained that the “purpose” of RPL for the year of
enquiry was to make investments in land
for letting to unconnected persons.
10. Mr Walker invited the Tribunal to give the word “purpose” its ordinary meaning,
pointing out that the
Oxford Dictionary's primary definition of the word is: "the reason for
which something is done or
created or for which something exists", and that Chambers Dictionary defines the word as: "the
object or aim in doing something", "the function
for which something is intended", "the intentions, aspirations, aim
or goal", "determination;
resolve". He added that as a
company has no real existence or
intelligence in its own right; it is the directors who determine why the
company was created and why it continues to exist; and on this basis, he considered
that he was the best person to explain
what he and his wife had been trying to do with the company. In the case of RPL, Mr Walker and his wife, as the
directors, had intended, aimed and
aspired towards the company letting property to unconnected persons, and that this
aspiration, or purpose, had been the
same for every single accounting period.
11. Mr Walker referred to HMRC's internal guidance contained in CTM60720 which states:
In
each case, it is a question of determining the relevant company's purpose of
existence, which is not necessarily the same as its
current activities. Thus a company may exists (sic) for the purpose of
carrying on a trade, even though in a particular accounting period it does not receive any trading income, or, indeed,
actually carry on a trade. This would be exceptional. It will be a
matter of fact whether or not it exists for a particular purpose, and what a company actually does will be a
significant indicator of its purpose, but it must exist for that purpose throughout the relevant
accounting period.
12. Mr Walker considered that RPL had been working towards achieving the purpose of having mainly
unconnected persons as tenants. He claimed that this purpose had been achieved
in the first few years of the
company, from 2000–2004;
and that the achievement
of this purpose only
stopped because of the change in the tenant partnership. During the year of enquiry, RPL’s purpose
continued to be to make investments in land for unconnected
persons letting, and that this purpose was
achieved during 2010 and 2011.
13. He explained that during the
period of 2005-2007 there
was an unsustainable boom in property prices suggesting
that it was a very reckless time to borrow to fund property purchases. He also referred to the global banking crisis of 2008 and 2009 and the associated property slump. Interest
rates were historically low and this had prevented general property prices from failing quickly. Nevertheless, RPL was able to find two investment properties
without taking on any borrowing. Under different economic circumstances
RPL would have achieved its purpose more quickly.
14. Mr Walker referred to the case of Herts
Photographic Bureau Ltd v HMRC. In that case, the company had sold its only property and in the decision, it was observed:
After careful consideration, we accept Mr Giffen's
evidence that he intended to reinvest the proceeds of sale of the Property in
acquiring residential properties as a rental investment throughout the
accounting period ended 31 May 2008. We accept that the impact of the
financial crisis, which began to make itself manifest in the late Summer and
early Autumn of 2007 and which continued throughout 2008, led him to hesitate
from procuring further rental properties but that it was still his intention to
do so.
15. Mr Walker
submitted that in a case like the present, where the rental income in the year
of enquiry is not mainly from unconnected letting it is essential to look at
what the company was doing before the year of enquiry and after to see whether
this supports what the directors say they were trying to do with the company. In
support of this contention, Mr Walker referred to the case of Cook v Medway
Housing Society Ltd and in particular at p332 where Mr Justice Lightman
observed:
In determining what is the business
of a company for the purposes of s130 (ICTA 1988), it
is necessary to have regard to the quality, purpose and
nature of the company and its activities…………It
is relevant to have regard to the actual activities carried on by the taxpayer
at the relevant date, but if these are viewed without regard to the taxpayer's
past history or future plans they may give only a partial and incomplete
picture.
16. In support of his argument about the
activities of later periods, Mr Walker referred to the analysis of projected rental income for 2011
which he had prepared in advance of the Hearing – showing that RPL’s projected unconnected letting
income was forecast to be 53% of total rental income, thereby supporting his
claim that the purpose of RPL in the year of enquiry was to have mainly third party investments.
17. In Mr Walker’s opinion, HMRC did not give sufficient weight to
the words `making investments' in s13 of the Act. He submitted that the phrase has an element of looking to the future in its definition
and understanding, and that a significant part of making investments must be the identification of
suitable opportunities. The process involves
making decisions when and when not to invest in property; it is not simply the
case that the purpose of a property investor should be to buy in any
market and at any price in order to show
they had that purpose.
18. Mr Walker also suggested that HMRC had taken too narrow a view when
trying to measure the actual activities of RPL in that they were apparently concerned
only with rental income and did not appear to
have followed their own internal guidance contained in CTM60730 namely:
Where,
for example, a company has substantial income from sources other than (or as
well as) trading or property investment, its purpose
may not be clear-cut. There will also be cases where the amount and source of
income is inconclusive as a test of purpose. In such cases, a common sense
approach is needed, and a review of all the facts should enable you to make a
decision.
19. Mr Walker submitted that the
capital asset value of RPL’s properties should have been taken into account by
HMRC in recognition of the fact that assets can be held not just for the income
they produce each year; but also for
other reasons, for example, prospective capital gains and a hedge against
inflation. In support of this contention, Mr Walker referred to an
analysis which detailed the estimated net asset values of the various investment properties owned by RPL at the start
of the year of enquiry. This analysis demonstrated that at the start
and the end of the year, at least 50% of RPL’s total asset value was held for letting to unconnected persons.
20. Mr Walker added that a further reason for not looking at rental
income on its own is that in this case of
connected landlord and tenant relationship it would have been quite easy
for the directors to have reduced the rental income below 50% of total income. They
did not do this and have instead always
charged the same rent income throughout the tenancy.
21. Mr Walker
concluded with a request that RPL’s anonymity be protected in the event of the
decision in this case being published. His main reason for this request was
that he had given a very open and full disclosure of the history of the
financial transactions of RPL and he was apprehensive that the publication of
the financial information which might be contained in the decision could be
prejudicial to his accountancy firm of Reid & Fraser Ltd. Indeed if there
were to have been such publicity, he might have reconsidered taking this case
to appeal.
22. On behalf of HMRC, Mrs Carney pointed out that s 13A(1) ICTA 1988 provides that a close company is for the purposes
of s13(1) a CIHC unless it complies with the requirements of ss(2); and
that s13A(2) provides that a company complies with this subsection in any
accounting period if throughout that period it exists wholly or mainly for any
one or more of prescribed purposes. In the present case, the critical period
was the year to 31 December 2008.
23. Mrs Carney emphasised that s13A(2) applies to "any accounting
period…….. throughout that period", and therefore the “purpose” test applies to each accounting period in
isolation, and is applied to the whole of each such period. She also observed that the company must exist "wholly
or mainly……."; that these words had to be given their normal meaning, and that
this required any prescribed purpose to have more than 50% of the
company's activities.
24. Mrs Carney noted that the accounts of RPL for the year to 31 December 2008 stated that
"The principle activity of the company
in the year under review was that of property rental" and that,
according to its accounts, this has been the
principal activity of the company throughout its existence. RPL and Reid & Fraser Ltd were connected
companies; and it was clear from the accounts of RPL that the majority
of its income came from letting property to the
business of Reid & Fraser, both prior to and following its incorporation.
Indeed the proportion of the income from Reid & Fraser Ltd had risen from
76% in 2004 to 89% in 2008. Even in 2009 and 2010, most of RPL’s rental income
still came from Reid & Fraser Ltd. As Mr Walker and his wife were
directors of both RPL and Reid & Fraser Ltd, it would have been within
their power to reduce the rent paid by Reid & Fraser Ltd, but they did not
do so.
25. In relation to the case of Herts Photographic Bureau Ltd v HMRC, Mrs Carney pointed out that the
property constituting that company’s only source of rental income had been
sold; and it was in these circumstances that the Tribunal found that there had
been no change in the purpose of the company.
26. On the basis that RPL did not meet the requirements of s 13A ICTA 1988
for the year to 31 December 2008, Mrs Carney
submitted that HMRC’s amendment should be confirmed, and that the appeal be dismissed.
Reasons
27. The question before the Tribunal was whether RPL was a CIHC in the year
to 31 December 2008.
28. Mr and Mrs Walker owned the entire issued share capital of both RPL
and Reid & Fraser Ltd, and having regard
to s13A ICTA 1988, it was accepted that RPL and Reid & Fraser Ltd had
been connected companies since 31 May 2004.
29. It was also acknowledged that in the year to 31 December 2008, the
greater part of the rental income of RPL came from Reid & Fraser Ltd.
30. Referring to s
13A(2) of ICTA 1988, it was agreed RPL did not meet the requirements of
subsections (2)(a), (2)(b)(ii), and (2)(c) to (2)(f); and the issue was whether
RPL met the requirements of subsection (2)(b)(i).
31. The critical
provisions of s 13A are therefore as follows -
(1) A close company is for the purposes of
section 13(1) a "close
investment-holding company" unless it complies with subsection (2) below.
(2) A company ("the relevant
company") complies with this subsection in any accounting period if
throughout that period it exists wholly or mainly for any one or more of the
following purposes -
(a) ……………………………………
(b) the purpose of making investments in land
or estates or interests in land in cases where the land is, or is intended to be, let to persons
other than
(i) any person connected with the relevant company,…………….
32. What was the
“purpose” for which RPL existed throughout 2008?
33. The Tribunal
wholly accepted Mr Walker’s evidence that from 2004, he and his wife as
directors of RPL, were actively monitoring the property market with a view to
identifying and making investments in property to let to unconnected persons,
but that they believed that taking additional borrowing to finance the purchase
of further property would be unwise. The sale of the tourist information
centre in February 2008, coincided with the developing financial crisis. They
considered that it was then unwise to make any offer for property as market
conditions were not right; and it was therefore not until 2010, that they felt
sufficiently confident to make further purchases of property.
34. The foregoing
clearly demonstrates the long-term intention of the directors of RPL to invest
in property which would be let to unconnected persons, but in the opinion of
the Tribunal such “intention” does not conclusively establish what might have
been RPL’s “purpose” in the year to 31 December 2008.
35. It is tempting
to look at subsequent events, particularly if these circumstances fulfil an
earlier expectation; but such future events cannot have any bearing on what may
have been a particular purpose at an earlier time.
36. RPL was
incorporated in August 2000 and in December of that year, it purchased its first
property – the premises at 15 Princes Street, Thurso. About ¾ of that property
was let to the firm of Reid & Fraser. Mr Walker was one of the two
partners in the firm at that time. In May 2002, RPL purchased the premises at 92 High Street, Wick; and this was also let to the firm of Reid & Fraser. There was no
evidence to suggest that either of these properties were advertised to let
before leases were taken by Reid & Fraser; and having regard to the close
connection between RPL and the firm of Reid & Fraser, it is reasonable to
conclude that these properties (with the exception of the two shops at 15 Princes
Street) were specifically acquired for Reid & Fraser’s occupation.
37. The tourist
information centre at John o’Groats was acquired in June 2003. There was no
suggestion that this was acquired for occupation by other than an unconnected
party. The other significant event was the formation of Reid & Fraser Ltd in
2004 and the transfer of the leases of 15 Princes Street and 92 High Street to the new company.
38. Looking to the
beginning of 2008, RPL owned:
(1)
Premises at 15 Princes Street, Thurso of which about 75% represented
office accommodation let to Reid & Fraser Ltd, with the balance forming two
shops which were occupied by unconnected parties;
(2)
Premises at 92 High Street, Wick, also let to Reid & Fraser Ltd; and
(3)
The tourist information centre at John o’Groats.
39. By this time,
one of the shops at 92 Princes Street was being occupied as a bookshop rent
free. At the Hearing, Mr Walker produced a statement showing a notional rent
for that shop. Accepting that notional rent, the statement brought out a total
which showed that 73% of RPL’s rental income was attributable to the two office
premises which were let to a connected party – namely Reid & Fraser Ltd.
40. It should be
acknowledged that the same statement also provided estimated capital values for
all of RPL’s properties – bringing out only 49.4% attributable to the value of
the two office premises let to Reid & Fraser Ltd.
41. It is with this
background that the Tribunal applies the provisions of s 13A of ICTA 1988 – the
question being whether, during the relevant period, RPL existed “wholly or
mainly………for the purpose of making investments in land or interests in land in
cases where the land is, or is intended to be, let to persons other than any
person connected with the relevant company”.
42. It is
appreciated that from its incorporation, the directors of RPL had always
intended that the company was to exist principally for the purpose of letting
to unconnected parties; and that in their opinion, they considered that in
2008, the value of funds held and the capital value of property let to
unconnected parties exceeded to value of the two office premises which were let
to Reid & Fraser Ltd. Indeed, that proportion would have increased during
the year if the funds from the sale of the tourist information centre were to
be substituted for its original value.
43. However, in the
opinion of the Tribunal, the word “purpose” requires to be viewed objectively,
based principally on the circumstances prevailing in the particular year, but
also having regard to the background in previous years.
44. The two shops at
15 Princes Street, even taken together, were only a small part of the whole property
at that address. Other than these two shops, the initial activity of RPL was
wholly attributable to providing premises for Reid & Fraser. The rental
income of the tourist information centre acquired in 2003 was relatively small
in relation to either of the office premises; and even when the business of
Reid & Fraser became incorporated in 2004, the investment portfolio of RPL was
still largely directed to providing premises for the business in which Mr
Walker had an interest –now the new (connected) company of Reid & Fraser
Ltd.
45. This is in
contrast to the circumstances in the case of Herts Photographic Bureau Ltd v
HMRC, where the only property, which had been let over a period of ten
years to two successive unconnected properties, was then sold.
46. It is accepted
that the directors of RPL had an intention of letting to unconnected parties,
but in the opinion of the Tribunal, this did not reflect what was the “purpose”
of the company in 2008, which was still largely to provide premises for Reid
& Fraser Ltd.
47. The Tribunal therefore
finds that RPL was indeed a CIHC and therefore liable for the higher rate of
Corporation tax; and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
48. In their notice
of Appeal, RPL asked that “in the event that the findings of the Tribunal Hearing
are published, it would be appreciated if the company’s anonymity could be
protected.” A similar request also appeared in the covering letter of 30 November
2010. There was no application for the Hearing to be in private, but at the
conclusion of the Hearing, Mr Walker renewed the foregoing request.
49. Following on the
Hearing, Mr Walker communicated direct with the Tribunal Office and conveyed
the following:
I would appreciate if you could consider the
following reasons for my request. I did ask the Tribunal Service if the case could
be given anonymity before I submitted my notice of appeal and was told to
request it on my form. I may well have reconsidered taking my case to appeal
if there had been almost no prospect of anonymity being given.
The main reason for requesting anonymity is because
I work professionally as a chartered accountant in general practice. I am
aware of how many tax tribunal cases are reported in the accounting and
taxation journals etc and online. I believe it may be prejudicial to my
accountancy firm, Reid & Fraser Ltd, if the details of my tribunal case are
reported. In the evidence I presented to the tribunal I gave a very open and
full disclosure of the history of the financial transactions of my connected
company, Reddleman Properties Ltd. This information is far in excess of the
information publicly available at Companies House for example.
I am concerned that both members of my staff and
competitors could easily become aware of the financial information contained in
the tribunal report. As far as I am aware neither my staff nor competitors are
aware of the existence or name of Reddleman Properties Ltd, however, it would
be quite easy for them to make a connection to the accountancy business if they
see the case reported in the tax press. It seems unfair that my right to have
my company’s tax affairs handled with confidentiality are not available when I
wish to challenge, what I believe to be, a wrong decision by HMRC.
50. The Procedure
Rules of the Tribunal do not contain any specific provision relative to the
publication of a decision, but in the opinion of the Tribunal, it is
appropriate to apply the same criteria as are applicable to having a Hearing in
private.
51. Rule 32 of the
Procedure Rules provides that:
(1) Subject to the following paragraphs, all hearings must be held in
public.
(2)
The Tribunal may give a direction that a hearing, or part of it, is to be held
in private if the Tribunal
considers that restricting access to the hearing is justified -
(a) in
the interests of public order or national security;(b) in order to protect a person's right to
respect for their private and family life; (c) in order to maintain the confidentiality of
sensitive information; (d)
in order to avoid serious harm to the public interest; or (e) because not to do so would prejudice the interests of justice.
52. It is also clear
from the authorities that there is a strong presumption that Hearings should
take place in public. In Guy Butler International Ltd v
Customs and Excise Commissioners[1974] VATTR 199 at 201 it was observed:
A tribunal will direct that an appeal or part of an
appeal shall be heard in private when a hearing in public would defeat the ends
of justice, or would be likely to harm the appellant in the course of his
business, or when the evidence to be given thereon will include confidential
information concerning another which such other could restrain
the appellant from disclosing to the public.
53. It follows that
there must be some compelling reason why any part of the proceedings must be in
private. It is not enough that a taxpayer wishes to conceal his private
affairs from others. The Tribunal has carefully considered the circumstances
as presented by Mr Walker, but cannot find any special reason which takes this
case within any of the categories identified in Rule 32. Publicity will
therefore be given to this decision in the normal way.
54. This document
contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party
dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal
against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)
(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal
not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties
are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal
(Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.
JOHN M BARTON, WS
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 15 JUNE 2011
