Take 3.9 TV Partnership & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 12 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 696 (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 five Take 3 partnerships disputing HMRC closure notices for 2001/02 and 2002/03 about whether their film-production payments (T3 Advances) were trading production expenditure. The FTT held each partnership was carrying on a trade but only the equity component of each T3 Advance qualified as revenue expenditure wholly and exclusively for that trade; the larger debt-funded component was characterised as repayable funding/loan and did not qualify. The Tribunal rejected equitable and public‑law bars to HMRC’s challenge and directed amendment of the closure notices accordingly.
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 composite advance for film funding comprises an equity contribution and a separate debt-funded advance that is contractually repayable by the producer, only the equity element can properly be treated as expenditure incurred by the contributor for production purposes; the repayable debt component is effectively a loan/gap‑fund and not deductible trading production expenditure. Also, the presence of a fiscal motive does not alone negate the trading character where the activities otherwise have the attributes 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 FTT observed (obiter) that long delays and loss of evidence are regrettable and can prejudice appellants, that taxpayers bear evidential burdens including record‑keeping obligations under TMA, and that statutory references to "expenditure incurred" should be read to mean expenditure actually incurred (not merely accounting debits), so the legal substance and repayment obligations affect characterisation.