header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
20 September 2013
Issue: 7576 / Categories: Case law , Law reports
printer mail-detail

Corporation tax—Computation of profits—Deductions

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.

Interfish Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2013] UKUT 0336 (TCC), [2013] All ER (D) 22 (Sep)

Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), Birss J, 16 Jul 2013

The “wholly and exclusively” test in s 74(1)(a) of the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988 (ICTA 1988) does not set up two categories of purpose—private and business—and provide that everything should be allocated to one or other category. The question is only whether the taxpayer’s actual purpose has been exclusively (namely solely) a business purpose. If not then the test is not satisfied.

Jonathan Peacock QC (instructed by Deloitte LLP) for the taxpayer. Patrick Way QC (instructed by the Revenue and Customs Commissioners) for the Revenue.

The taxpayer was a fishing, fish processing, fish wholesaling and fish retailing company based in Plymouth. Its retail business (within the stores of one of the major supermarkets retailers) traded as “South West Seafoods”. The taxpayer was controlled by C. It was common ground that C’s state of mind amounted to the state of mind

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Sponsored by
Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Carey Olsen—Patrick Ormond

Partner joinscorporate and finance practice in British Virgin Islands

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Dawson Cornwell—Naomi Angell

Firm strengthens children department with adoption and surrogacy expert

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Penningtons Manches Cooper—Graham Green

Media and technology expert joins employment team as partner in Cambridge

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Divorce ‘nuclear weapon’ freezes assets but entangles outsiders
Freezing orders in divorce proceedings can unexpectedly ensnare third parties and disrupt businesses. In NLJ this week, Lucy James of Trowers & Hamlins explains how these orders—dubbed a ‘nuclear weapon’—preserve assets but can extend far beyond spouses to companies and business partners 
NLJ this week: What counts as ‘rent’? Court says labour alone won’t do
A Court of Appeal ruling has clarified that ‘rent’ must be monetary—excluding tenants paid in labour from statutory protection. In this week's NLJ, James Naylor explains Garraway v Phillips, where a tenant worked two days a week instead of paying rent
Your magistrates’ court needs you!
Thousands more magistrates are to be recruited, under a major shake-up to speed up and expand the hiring process
NLJ this week: Freed but failed—justice system leaves the innocent empty-handed
Three men wrongly imprisoned for a combined 77 years have been released—yet received ‘not a penny’ in compensation, exposing deep flaws in the justice system. Writing in NLJ this week, Dr Jon Robins reports on Justin Plummer, Oliver Campbell and Peter Sullivan, whose convictions collapsed amid discredited forensics, ‘oppressive’ police interviews and unreliable ‘cell confessions’
NLJ this week: Clarity on whistleblowing, settlements and tribunal limits
A quiet month for employment cases still delivers key legal clarifications. In his latest Employment Law Brief for NLJ, Ian Smith reports that whistleblowing protection remains intact even where disclosures are partly self-serving, provided the worker reasonably believes they serve the ‘public interest’ 
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll