This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our privacy notice.

Two LLPs Were Trading But A Third LLP Was Not

By Mark McLaughlin, November 2016
The First-tier Tribunal held (among other things) that two of the three appellant LLPs were trading, but that the third was not; and that losses were not computed correctly as a matter of generally accepted accounting practice.

The three appellant LLPs were involved in the production of a large number of films and video or computer games. The appellants contended that, in their early years, those activities resulted in trading losses, which their investors could in appropriate circumstances set against their other taxable income. Following enquiries, HM Revenue and Customs issued closure notices amending the partnership tax returns to deny the loss relief claims. The appellants appealed.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) had to consider a number of issues. On the first issue (i.e. whether the appellants were carrying on a trade), the FTT concluded on the facts and evidence that two of the LLPs (Ingenious Film Partners 2 LLP (IFP2)
Subscribe to the McLaughlin’s Tax Case Library to get instant access
to the Tax Case Library.
14 day free trial , 90 day money back guarantee
Subscribe

Related or similar articles

Discovery Assessment Valid And Relief For Footballer Development Activity Losses Not Allowable
By Mark McLaughlin, September 2018
LLP Was Carrying On Trade But Not On Commercial Basis Or With A View To Realisation Of Profits
By Mark McLaughlin, September 2017
Sideways Loss Relief Not Available As LLP Trades Failed Commerciality Test
By Mark McLaughlin, August 2017
Relief For Footballer Development Activity Losses Was Not Allowable
By Mark McLaughlin, December 2016
‘Icebreaker Partnerships’ Appeals Dismissed
By Mark McLaughlin, December 2016