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.

Was the input tax on legal fees incurred for the purposes of the business?

By Andrew Needham, September 2020

The appellant partnership appealed against a decision of HMRC  refusing to allow input tax recovery on legal fees  incurred in bringing proceedings in the High Court to rescind certain transfers of farmland to a discretionary trust. 

In 2011, the partners were Tom Bainbridge, Colin Bainbridge, Peter Bainbridge.  At that time, the partnership was farming three separate pieces of land, each one held separately by one of the partners.   

In 2011, the three plots of land were moved into a discretionary trust. â€¯â€¯ This was done to ensure that all of the land would remain available to the farming business:  Tom Bainbridge was at the time elderly and in poor health, and there were concerns that claims on the land might be made by other family members following his death.  At the time that the discretionary trust was established, it was believed that no CGT would be payable on this transaction. â€

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

Was the sale of rotisserie chickens a zero-rated supply of food of a kind for human consumption or a standard-rated supply of hot takeaway food?
By Andrew Needham, February 2026
Was the sale of passes to visitors to London a voucher and therefore outside the scope of VAT at the time of issue or the sale of a ticket which was standard-rated at the time of issue?
By Andrew Needham, October 2024
Was the appellant entitled to a repayment from HMRC for historical VAT on historical bad debts that it stated it had not claimed?
By Andrew Needham, May 2023
Were cereal bars aimed at young children zero-rated foodstuffs or standard rated confectionary?
By Andrew Needham, June 2021
Was the provision of education and/or vocational training by the appellant provided free of charge to students and funded by grants from two government funding agencies is a “supply of services for consideration”?
By Andrew Needham, February 2021