Taxation logo taxation mission text

Since 1927 the leading authority on tax law, practice and administration

Funny business

15 May 2012 / Mike Truman
Issue: 4353 / Categories: Comment & Analysis , Admin
MIKE TRUMAN believes a recent case has created confusion about definitions


  • ‘Business’ is often defined as ‘trade’ but not in TCGA 1992 s 162.
  • Judge appears to have incorrectly contrasted business with Sch A in this case.
  • Statements about a business merely requiring ‘some activity’ in American Leaf Blending ignored.
  • Special Commissioners’ formulation in Rashid v Garcia preferred.

The name Ramsay is one to conjure with in tax but this article isn’t about the long series of avoidance cases started back in the 1970s.

This is about a First-tier Tribunal case heard in July last year but where the decision was not given until January this year.

It’s a case about incorporation relief under TCGA 1992 s 162 and it has a worrying approach to the definition of trade and business.


If you or your firm subscribes to, please click the login box below:

If you are not a subscriber but are a registered user or have a free trial, please enter your details in the following boxes:

Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.

Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or '' for further assistance.

back to top icon