Sam Glover

  • Call: 2020


Sam practises in all areas of revenue law acting for and advising, in both contentious and non-contentious contexts, a broad range of clients from members of the public on a direct access basis to city law firms and accountants.

In addition to the specific fields listed below, Sam’s practice encompasses all areas of dispute between taxpayers and HMRC including all forms of penalties, information notices, discovery assessments and requesting permission to appeal out of time.

Sam also accepts instructions on chancery matters where there is a substantive tax element.

Sam is a co-author of the costs and disclosure chapters of the Tax Litigation Handbook and regularly lectures and publishes articles on subjects relevant to his practice.

He is happy to accept instructions under the Public Access scheme.

A copy of Sam's privacy notice can be found here.

Recent Cases

Kent Couriers Limited v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 145

Sam represented the taxpayer in their successful appeal against an assessment to excise duty.  Excise goods were seized at the France/UK boarder duty unpaid.  The goods were being transported through a European network of independent road hauliers and HMRC assessed the taxpayer on the basis that they were holding the goods under Regulation 13 of the Excise Goods (Holding, Movement and Duty Point) Regulations 2010 (SI 2010/593). The FTT upheld the appeal on the grounds that, under the correct test, the taxpayer did not have a sufficient level of control over the goods.

Corporation Tax

Recent advisory work and ongoing litigation includes instructions on the following:

  • Whether relief was available under the UK/USA Double Tax Agreement. Specifically whether the taxpayer was carrying on business in the UK through a permanent establishment.
  • The disallowance of debits arising under a loan relationship on the grounds that it was entered into for an unallowable purpose. High value matter arising out of the reorganisation of the European operation of a large multinational corporation.
  • Whether shares with some limited rights are ordinary share capital for the purposes of business asset disposal relief. HMRC denied relief, claiming that the shares were not ordinary share capital on the basis that the return was fixed by reference to a formula.
  • Availability of business asset disposal relief on sale of shares. The relevant company had built up very significant cash reserves, the question was whether the company was nevertheless still a trading company.
  • The correct capital gains tax treatment of sums received upon the grant and variation of an option to purchase land where the interest in the relevant land was subsequently lost by the grantor.
  • The eligibility of certain projects for research and development relief. Specifically, whether an item was produced and if so whether the project resulted in an advance in science or technology in the process of production.
  • In respect of a scheme involving the sale of a personal service company: (i) whether the GAAR applied (ii) the likelihood and consequences of HMRC challenge, and (iii) the best method of unwinding.
  • The availability of roll-over relief in respect of the disposal of land used for small scale business. Specifically, whether the activities carried out on the land constituted a trade.
  • Correct capital gains tax treatment of a payment received to settle a professional negligence claim arising from a transfer of land. Specifically, whether the negligence had resulted in a loss to the claimant in respect of tax.

Employment Tax

Recent advisory work and ongoing litigation includes instructions on the following:

  • Whether certain incentives fell within the provisions of the anti-phoenixing TAAR in section 396B of ITTOIA. Planning post sale of consultancy business: the extent to which performance bonuses, stock options, preference shares etc could be utilised without engaging the provisions of the TAAR.
  • Whether payments made under an insurance scheme were earnings from employment. The employer guaranteed certain payments awarded to employees by a third party, the issue was whether payments made under the scheme were ‘from’ the employee’s employment.
  • The correct tax treatment of a payment made in respect of an employment that was terminated prior to commencement of duties. Primary question was whether, on the facts, the payment was nevertheless from employment and if not whether the provisions of chapter 3 of part 6 of ITEPA applied.
  • The proper method of calculating the cash value of an employment-related benefit. The employee assigned certain rights to the employer in return for payment, whether this was a benefit and if so the correct approach to valuation.

Private Client

Recent advisory work and ongoing litigation includes instructions on the following:

  • Validity of trustee appointment. Whether the historic unilateral resignation of a trustee was effective, if no the identity of the present trustees and validity of various purported actions of the trustees since.
  • Extraction of asset from a non-UK resident EFRBS. Fund consisted of a single asset with very large unrealised gains.  Significant difficulties presented by applicable pensions legislation.
  • Whether a certificate of discharge applied to a particular transfer of value. Required to determine whether a certain transfer of value was made under the deemed transfer on death or was in fact a lifetime transfer.
  • The extent of a lifetime beneficiary’s entitlement under a discretionary will trust. The legacy benefitted from certain subjective minimum requirements, the question was whether the trustees’ actions breached the terms of these provisions.
  • Whether the provision of a guarantee was a transfer of value. The deceased guaranteed a loan during their lifetime, the guarantee was subsequently called in after death.  The question was whether this was a lifetime transfer and if so its extent.
  • Whether certain properties were held on resulting trust. A trust deed had been executed but the question was whether a resulting trust arose prior to this.
  • The correct capital gains tax treatment of a gift of the beneficial title to non-UK land. The gift was to be made from a UK domiciled individual to their non-UK domiciled spouse in circumstances where a gift of the legal title would trigger local tax charges.
  • Whether a legatee held and interest in possession. Non-UK succession planning had been executed, however the deceased unexpectedly died UK domiciled.  Question was whether certain legacies that were collectively required, subject to contingencies, to achieve a fixed minimum annual sum constituted an interest in possession.
  • The powers of discretionary will trustees to act prior to the completion of administration. Specifically, whether a legacy was received by the legatee directly from the estate or from the trust.
  • The scope of an indemnity provided to HMRC in respect of a lost certificate of tax deposit. In the context of a claim for professional negligence, whether the defendant was required to assume the potential liability or whether it was unrelated to the alleged negligence.
  • The correct treatment of a gain arising under a discounted gift trust. Specifically whether the estate held any interest under the trust when the underlying policy was surrendered.

VAT and Indirect Tax

Recent advisory work and ongoing litigation includes instructions on the following:


  • Whether supplies were exempt as the provision by an eligible body of education. A charity had established a wholly owned limited company in order to make certain taxable supplies.  The question was whether the relevant supplies were made by the company or the charity for VAT purposes.
  • Recovery of input VAT by a company after cessation of its business. Under the reorganisation of a large multinational the lease of business premises was to be assigned from one group entity to another.  The landlord delayed the assignment and the outgoing entity incurred costs under the lease after the date it ceased trading.  HMRC denied a claim for input tax on the grounds that the rights under the lease were not used for the purposes of its business.


  • Whether the acquisition of a major interest in land was a notifiable transaction. The transaction was between connected parties and therefore deemed to be for market value.  The question was whether certain factors that adversely affecting the value of the land obviated the requirement to deliver a return.
  • Whether a contract of sale was substantially performed. The relevant contract was never completed, however certain payments related to the subject matter of the contract were received by the prospective purchaser.  The question was whether these payments resulted in the contract being substantially performed.

Customs & Excise

  • Restoration of item of significant cultural value seized for breach of CITES procedures. The item was purchased from a Danish gallery.  The gallery agreed to arrange delivery of the item but unfortunately did not obtain a UK CITES Import Permit.  Drafted correspondence with Boarder Force who exercised their discretion to return the item upon review.

Also Kent Couriers Limited v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 145 – see ‘Cases’ above.

Public Law

Recent advisory work and ongoing litigation includes instructions on the following:

  • The public law jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal. Whether the Tribunal could hear an appeal on the grounds of legitimate expectation.  HMRC had arguably acted contrary to their published policy, the question was whether this was a question that could be determined by the First-tier Tribunal or whether it was necessary to bring a claim for judicial review.

Professional Negligence

Recent advisory work and ongoing litigation includes instructions on the following:

  • Failure to advise on SDLT consequences. Whether the implementation of a scheme intended to facilitate the deduction of costs incurred in running let properties resulted in a charge to SDLT.
  • Incorrect advice in relation to the eligibility of certain projects for research and development tax relief. Whether the defendant was negligent in advising the claimant that they were eligible for the relief.


2021-2022 – Pupillage, Pump Court Tax Chambers

2020 – Called to the Bar (Gray’s Inn)


LLB (Hons), Open University

BPTC, City Law School


Revenue Bar Association (RBA)

VAT Practitioner’s Group (VPG)