Mark Stolkin & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 26 February 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 160 (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 Stolkin Greenford Ltd (SGL) had been carrying on, or preparing to carry on, a trade in relation to part of its West London land such that the individual appellants qualified for entrepreneurs' relief on disposal of their shares. The First-tier Tribunal found SGL remained an investment company: appropriation of the Site to trading stock and extensive planning/value‑enhancement steps did not amount to trading or preparation to trade. The appeals were dismissed and entrepreneurs' relief was refused.

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

A mere change of intention or an internal appropriation of an asset to trading stock is not, by itself, sufficient to establish that a company is carrying on a trade; what is required is objective, multi‑factorial evidence of trading conduct. Extensive planning activity, engagement of consultants and steps to enhance value can be consistent with investment rather than trading where there is no material change in the character of the asset or other activities characteristic of a trade.

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 engaging third‑party specialists to carry out work does not preclude a finding of trading where the principal coordinates and directs the activity, but procurement alone is not decisive. It also noted that large-scale, organised activity may reflect either a sophisticated investment strategy or trading, so weight depends on the overall factual matrix.