Michael King v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 12 August 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1163 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

This appeal concerned whether the Q7000 vessel on which Mr King worked was an "offshore installation" or a "ship" for ITEPA/ITA purposes and whether its use entitled him to Seafarers' Earnings Deduction (SED). The Tribunal found the Q7000 to be a structure that was stationed in waters when latched to wells but held that its actual activity was decommissioning and permanent well abandonment, not "exploiting mineral resources by means of a well." Because the vessel was not put to the relevant use in section 1001(3), it was not an offshore installation and Mr King’s SED was allowed. HMRC’s closure notices were overturned.

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: high

The decision turns on actual use rather than mere functional capability: to be an offshore installation under the statutory test a vessel must have been, or be demonstrably put to be, used for "exploiting mineral resources by means of a well" (considering historic, current and evidenced future use); a vessel used solely for decommissioning and permanent abandonment does not satisfy that relevant-use requirement.

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 commented that the future-looking limb of the relevant-use inquiry requires evidence of intended or planned future relevant use and does not extend to mere theoretical possibilities. It also observed that dynamic positioning can satisfy the requirement of a vessel being "stationed or standing" in waters where it is substantially stationary relative to a fixed point, but that advanced DP systems do not automatically convert all DP use into mere navigation.