Rajesh Gill v HMRC [2017] TC06477 the FTT decided that share dealing could be a commercial trade in respect of side-ways loss relief, it also considered a procedural point: could HMRC 'ambush' the tribunal with late evidence? The answer that was expensive for HMRC.

Mr Gill had a long history of dealing in shares and securities. He had made substantial profits and on a large scale in the past. He made large losses and claimed Sideways Loss relief.

Sideways loss relief was denied by HMRC who considered that he was not trading, but was engaged in investment activities or his investment strategies amounted to gambling or, if he was trading it was not a commercial basis.

The taxpayer appealed.

The First Tier Tribunal (FTT) considered the Badges of Trade and relevant case law and found on the facts that Mr Gill had dealing in financial instruments and securities since a student and that all things considered he was trading on a commercial basis and allowed his claim.

HMRC tried to introduce evidence late. The appellant objected and claimed that HMRC was high jacking proceedings. It was ruled that the evidence was inadmissible, it was not only late, it also contained errors and it appeared that HMRC were attempting to circumvent an earlier ruling which had deemed that no expert witness evidence could be provided. The taxpayer was awarded his costs in making the objection.


Although this decision sets no precedent it is a handy case for anyone making losses from dealing in financial instruments and securities. The point about late evidence is something to remember. It is not uncommon for parties to want to add evidence and the proper route is apply to the tribunal and  not sneak it in.

Useful links

Badges of Trade: are you trading or not?

Losses, trading and other loss reliefs

Sideways loss relief: restriction for uncommercial trades


Rajesh Gill v HMRC [2017] TC06477