Craig William Burley v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 August 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 989 (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
This appeal concerned whether Mr Craig William Burley validly assigned his rights to income from two film partnerships to an LLP and, in any event, whether he remained the person "receiving or entitled to" the partnership profits for income tax purposes. The First-tier Tribunal found that, on a realistic appraisal of commercial substance (not merely the LLP accounts or the Minute), Mr Burley remained entitled to the partnership profits for the periods in issue and dismissed his appeal, upholding HMRC’s closure notices. The Tribunal also doubted the Minute effected an equitable assignment and held that, if it did, it could not operate before it was executed.
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’s ratio is that determining who is "receiving or entitled to" partnership profits for income tax requires a realistic appraisal of commercial substance rather than reliance on accounting entries; an alleged assignment (equitable or contractual) cannot defeat the actuality that receipts applied to the transferor’s benefit (for example to discharge personal borrowings or where security existed) if that shows the transferor remained entitled to the income.
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 made observations that may be obiter: a future chose in action requires consideration for an equitable assignment to be effective; contractual prohibitions on assignment generally bind only the counterparty and do not necessarily prevent an equitable transfer between assignor and assignee; and where an assignment is subject to pre-existing security the assignee takes subject to that security and the economic value of the assignment may be substantially reduced. These points were discussed as legal propositions rather than as the decisive basis for the outcome.