Currys Retail Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 23 June 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 762 (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 a degrouping charge under s.179(3) TCGA 1992 arose when CPW left its chargeable gains group in 2008 after agreements with BBUK; HMRC assessed a degrouping charge on £107,658,000 of goodwill. The FTT took a purposive, realistic view of the SPA, MSA and surrounding circumstances, found CPW retained legal and beneficial ownership of the businesses and goodwill (BBUK only obtained a fixed percent of future gross revenues), and held the PCN correctly alleged a degrouping charge; CPW’s appeal was dismissed. The tribunal did not resolve detailed downstream tax consequences of the inter‑company payment in this judgment.

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 tribunal’s ratio is that, in applying degrouping/anti‑avoidance provisions, courts must construe the statute purposively and assess the true facts realistically; where contractual labels do not reflect reality, an ostensible assignment of goodwill will not prevent a deemed disposal under s.179(3) if the transferor in fact retains control and the economic risks and rewards of the business and goodwill.

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 judgment includes remarks that a later Side Letter (executed 18 months after the transactions) cannot alter the legal position at the degrouping date for s.179 purposes, and that while commercial connections or tax motives do not of themselves negate a genuine disposal, motive is a relevant factor when assessing the realistic effect of arrangements.