Finnforest UK Limited, Card Protection Plan Limited, Exxonmobil Chemical Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 20 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 342 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Three companies sought tribunal directions requiring HMRC to issue closure notices for corporation tax enquiries about cross-border group loss relief. The tribunal refused the closure applications, concluding it was not appropriate to order closure while factual and evidential inquiries remained and encouraged the parties to pursue a consensual para 31A referral on the discrete legal "Grouping Test." The tribunal also refused to reallocate the proceedings from the Basic to the Complex category.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
The tribunal held that, under para 33 Sch 18, it should direct closure only unless satisfied that HMRC lacks reasonable grounds for delay; where substantive factual investigation and outstanding information requests are material to the enquiry (including mixed legal-factual group relief claims), refusal of a closure direction is appropriate and a para 31A referral to determine a discrete legal issue may be the constructive alternative. Reallocation to Complex status requires meeting the Rule 23(4) criteria and is not justified merely by the size or novelty of underlying substantive claims.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The tribunal observed that para 31A referrals can usefully "carve out" discrete legal issues while enquiries continue on other matters; closure notices ideally should state informative conclusions but may be more general where facts are complicated and uninvestigated; and parties should cooperate reasonably in framing referrals, since overly broad draft referrals may be legitimately resisted.