Simon Wilders v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 1 April 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 517 (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
Mr Wilders appealed HMRC’s closure notice denying share loss relief for his 2011 subscription in SSVL after a failed wreck search. The Tribunal found the purchase was an arm’s‑length composite bargain valuing the shares at £864 each but held the payment was not given wholly and exclusively for the shares because it bought a bundled package (commercial participation plus a tax‑manufactured benefit). The Tribunal also found the loan/novation mechanics were designed so repayments would not be required and that manufacturing the tax relief was one of the appellant’s main purposes, so anti‑avoidance provisions (s16A/s30 TCGA) excluded the loss. The appeal was dismissed.
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
Where a purchaser pays for a bundled/composite investment that combines commercial participation with a tax‑shelter mechanism, expenditure that serves both purposes is not "wholly and exclusively" for acquisition of the shares for s38 TCGA; and contractual features (such as novation at a nominal fee and control over counterparties) demonstrating practical avoidance of loan repayment can show that obtaining the tax advantage was a main purpose for s16A/s30 TCGA, permitting exclusion of the loss.
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 noted that an expert valuation depending untested on promoter IM figures and ignoring financing may be of limited assistance, that failure to produce underlying specialist research can weaken but not automatically negate the commercial credibility of a speculative project, and that a finding the venture was a speculative but genuine trade does not prevent anti‑avoidance provisions from applying where relief was manufactured.