FTTTx P35 return-Penalty for late return (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.98A)-Reasonable excuse-Appeal dismissed
Staker TJ
[2011] UKFTT 623 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449589
FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme – whether return deemed to be delivered in the ordinary course of post – yes – whether return delivered late – no – appeal allowed
[2011] UKFTT 486 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.449457
Freedman J
[2019] EWHC 3566 (QB)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.645989
The Court was asked whether the Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (‘HMRC’) can owe a common law duty of care to verify the factual accuracy of evidence relied upon in proceedings in the Tax tribunals. It arises in the context of a claim for damages brought by the Respondent in which it was alleged that HMRC was liable for breach of contract, breach of statutory duty and/or negligence in relation to matters arising from an HMRC investigation into what has become known as VAT ‘MTIC’ fraud, and the conduct of subsequent litigation.
Held: The revenue’s appeal succeeded: ‘the judge failed to apply Lord Bingham’s test in the Barclays Bank case properly. It has been decided that parties do not owe each other a duty of care in litigation.’
[2019] EWCA Civ 2176
England and Wales
Updated: 29 September 2022; Ref: scu.645550
Aozora UK challenged closure notices issued by HMRC dated 20 May 2016, following enquiries into tax returns
Sir Kenneth Parker
[2017] EWHC 2881 (Admin), [2017] STI 2686, 20 ITL Rep 402, [2018] STC 11, [2017] BTC 36
England and Wales
Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.599399
P35 return-Penalty for late return (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.98A)-Reasonable excuse-Appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 844 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.450941
Penalties for late filing of P35 for three consecutive years- whether returns for first two years were delivered to HMRC – Interpretation Act 1978 – appeal for those two years allowed and penalties set aside – whether penalty of pounds 400 for not filing the 2009-10 return online was unfair and/or disproportionate – no – appeal dismissed and penalty confirmed.
[2011] UKFTT 815 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.450943
Income/Corporation Tax – penalties – Form P11D (b)-Penalty for late return-Appeal dismissed
Blewitt TJ
[2011] UKFTT 846 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 September 2022; Ref: scu.450944
The court was asked as to the operation of the Pay As You Earn income tax system in circumstances where an employer has provided in its payroll records for rebates of income tax payable to employees, has deducted those rebates from the PAYE payments made to HM Revenue and Customs (HMCR) but has not paid them to the employees.
David Richards J
[2010] EWHC 938 (Ch), [2010] STI 1516, [2010] STC 1779, [2010] BTC 619
England and Wales
Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.424851
Schedule 36 FA 2008 information notice- whether appellant required to produce the documents listed – yes if within his possession or power – appeal dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 429 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 September 2022; Ref: scu.656828
NOTICES to 308 financial institutions under para 5 Sch 36 FA 2008 without naming the taxpayer – whether conditions satisfied – yes – whether approval should be given to the Notices – yes
[2009] UKFTT 224 (TC), [2009] STI 2717, [2009] SFTD 780
England and Wales
Updated: 22 September 2022; Ref: scu.409062
FTTTx PROCEDURE – HMRC’s application to set aside decision in respect of a penalty for late return – paragraph 3 Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009 – alleged late submission of paper tax return followed by timely submission of online return – whether paper tax return a valid return – onus of proof in relation to penalties – no evidence that a valid paper return filed – appeal allowed – HMRC supply further evidence after decision communicated to parties- application by HMRC to set decision aside under Rule 38 of the Tribunal Rules
[2013] UKFTT 495 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 19 September 2022; Ref: scu.516307
FTTTx PROCEDURE – Appeal – Application for permission to notify to Tribunal -Appeal made to HMRC before 1 April 2009 – After 1 April 2009 HMRC offered Applicant a review – Offer not accepted and matter not notified to Tribunal within ‘acceptance period’ – Whether Tribunal should give permission to notify appeal out of time – Application granted – TMA 1970 s49H(3)
[2011] UKFTT 385 (TC)
Taxes Management Act 1970 49H(3)
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443139
FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special expertise of the Tribunal – whether decision as to admissibility of the evidence should be a case management matter or deferred until the hearing of the appeal – questions as to admissibility and weight to be attributed to evidence admitted to be determined following hearing of the appeal – application refused
[2011] UKFTT 401 (TC)
England and Wales
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SCIT 17-Feb-2009
SCIT Closure notice – application for direction to close enquiry into tax return – limited liability partnership – s 28B Taxes Management Act 1970 – direction for closure within three months . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No. 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Sep-2010
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Applications by the parties for further directions – whether departure by HMRC unilaterally from the timetable for preparation for the appeal set down in agreed directions, causing additional . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 20-Apr-2012
FTTTx Income tax – limited liability partnership acquired licence to film rights and sub-licensed rights to distributor – complex financing arrangements involving loans to members of the partnership and . .
Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp UTTC 22-Mar-2013
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying . .
At FTTTx – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs CA 26-Feb-2014
The court was asked whether the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had jurisdiction to make an order that the costs of preparing hearing bundles for a substantive appeal by the appellant taxpayer should be shared equally between the taxpayer and the . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v HM Revenue and Customs CA 17-Feb-2015
Appeal against closure notice. . .
At FTTTx – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The issue raised on this appeal concerns the extent to which the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal to make an order for costs is fettered by the provisions of the Rules regulating the procedure of the Tribunal.
Held: With one exception, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443104
FTTTx Appeal against penalties – whether for three or two years – whether there was a reasonable excuse for not filing the 2005-06 return – held, yes – penalty for the two remaining years set aside as incorrect – appeal for all three years allowed.
Redston
[2011] UKFTT 428 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443090
CASE MANAGEMENT – Exclusion of evidence and admission of late evidence – Principles applicable – O’Brien v Chief Constable of South Wales Police [2005] 2 WLR 1038, HL applied – Need for balancing exercise
[2011] UKFTT 314 (TC)
England and Wales
At FTTTx – HM Revenue and Customs v Atlantic Electronics Limited UTTC 26-Nov-2012
UTTC APPEAL AGAINST DIRECTION – First-tier Tribunal refusing to admit certain evidence – whether refusal a reasonable exercise of discretion – no -appeals allowed and decisions re-made – principles to be taken . .
At FTTTx – HMRC v Atlantic Electronics Ltd UTTC 6-Feb-2012
UTTC COSTS – Transitional appeal – Appeal by HMRC against direction under Transfer of Tribunal Functions and Revenue and Customs Appeals Order 2009, Sch 3, para 7 for 1986 applying 2009 Rules to the proceedings – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443018
FTTTx Penalty – Late filing of company’s tax return – Whether return filed within three months of the due date – No – Appeal dismissed – Schedule 18 Finance Act 1998
Brooks TJ
[2011] UKFTT 311 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443043
FTTTx Assessment/self-assessment
Notes: Income tax – computation of profits – closure notice and amendments – s29 TMA discovery assessments – onus of proof on taxpayer in relation to amounts assessed – ‘presumption of continuity’: meaning and effect Income Tax -penalties for negligent conduct s 95 TMA 1970. FIRST-TIER
[2011] UKFTT 315 (TC)
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.443075
FTTTx Appeal against amendment made to Appellant’s tax return as a result of his spending more than 183 days in the UK because of his son’s serious illness requiring hospitalisation in the UK – whether compassionate grounds applied -appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 212 (TC)
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442939
FTTTx Late payment surcharge – Inability to pay – Whether reasonable excuse on the facts – No – Appeal dismissed – Section 59C Taxes Management Act 1970
[2011] UKFTT 208 (TC)
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442940
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Surcharge on unpaid income tax (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.59C) – Whether a reasonable excuse for late payment – Appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 194 (TC)
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442916
FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme – Penalty for late return (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.98A) – Reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 195 (TC)
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442920
Appeal against Information Notices issued under Schedule 36 of Finance Act 2008 – whether the information was reasonably required – whether Data Protection Act 1998 applies- whether Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 applies – whether information required is unreasonable and onerous – appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 187 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442915
FTTTX PAYE underpayment – HMRC error – elderly disabled unrepresented taxpayer – appeal against collection – Extra-statutory Concession A19 – penalty for late filing of self-assessment return – surcharges for late payment of tax – whether reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 135 (TC)
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442866
FTTTx Company Tax – Penalties for late returns (Finance Act 1998, Sch 18, para 17) – Reasonable excuse (Taxes Management Act 1970, s.118(2)) – Returns submitted within deadline but rejected by HMRC as accounts were not signed – Burden on HMRC to establish that returns were filed late and therefore to establish in this case that the Appellant was required to submit signed accounts – Appeal allowed
[2011] UKFTT 186 (TC)
Taxes Management Act 1970, 118(2)
Updated: 17 September 2022; Ref: scu.442852
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY SCHEME – Withdrawal of gross payment status – Appellant did not meet the compliance test – whether Appellant had a reasonable excuse for his failure – Yes – ‘reason to expect’ test failed – No – Appeal allowed
[2011] UKFTT 225 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442987
The claimant challenged the lawfulness of HMRC’s enforcement of retrospective amendments to legislation in violation of his human rights. The claimant says that, before the legislation was amended with retrospective effect, he was entitled to relief from UK income tax on income received by him from a trust in the Isle of Man. Now HMRC rely on the amendments to deny him, retrospectively, the tax relief previously available.
Mummery, Sullivan, Tomlinson LJJ
[2011] EWCA Civ 893, [2012] QB 489
England and Wales
Cited – Recovery of Medical Costs for Asbestos Diseases (Wales) Bill (Reference By The Counsel General for Wales) SC 9-Feb-2015
The court was asked whether the Bill was within the competence of the Welsh Assembly. The Bill purported to impose NHS charges on those from whom asbestos related damages were recovered.
Held: The Bill fell outside the legislative competence . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 16 September 2022; Ref: scu.442161
DECISION – The Application is adjourned to the hearing of the appeal
[2011] UKUT 112 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440811
Taxation of Lloyd’s syndicates – Lloyd’s Underwriters (Double Taxation Relief) Regulations 1997 – relief for US tax – whether provision for different treatment unlawful – no – whether notice to file tax return invalid – no – application of section 103 Finance Act 2020 – whether notice of enquiry invalid – no- whether closure notice invalid – no – application of section 12D Taxes Management Act 1970
[2020] UKFTT 415 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 12 September 2022; Ref: scu.655345
The Inspector sought to strike out the taxpayers appeal against a refusal to state a case as being out of time. The taxpayer replied that his complaint that the Commissioners had failed to give adequate reasons for their decision was an error of law.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal was struck out. The General Commissioners were under no express obligation to give reasons for their decision.
Lightman J
Times 01-Nov-2005, [2005] EWHC 2212 (Ch)
England and Wales
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.231273
[1999] EWHC Ch 205
England and Wales
Updated: 11 September 2022; Ref: scu.135818
(New Zealand)
[1986] UKPC 45, [1987] 2 WLR 24, (1986) 83 LSG 3598, [1987] AC 155, [1986] STC 548
England and Wales
Updated: 10 September 2022; Ref: scu.443533
FTTTx Procedure – late application for full findings of fact and reasons for summary decision on default paper case – no good reason given for lateness – approach to extensions of time for such matters – application also received for permission to appeal, together with new evidence – premature, as no full findings of fact and reasons provided – treated as application to set aside original decision – failure to submit full evidence in support of original appeal does not amount to a procedural irregularity which could found such an application – interests of justice would in any event preclude the granting of such an application – application made late in any event and no permission to extend time would be given – factors to be taken into account in considering extensions of time limits under the Tribunal’s procedure rules – applications dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 189 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 09 September 2022; Ref: scu.462611
The taxpayer’s accountants had submitted a tax return amending the taxpayer’s own return adding claims for losses. The accountant acknowledged the contentious nature of the claim and invited a review. The Revenue sought now to recover the tax due under the initial return.
Held: The County Court had jurisdiction to determine in collection proceedings whether the taxpayer was entitled to rely on the claim for relief as a defence to a demand by the Revenue for immediate payment and (b) Cotter was not entitled to rely on his claim for loss relief as a defence to the Revenue’s demand for payment of the tax due in respect of 2007/08.
HMRC were correct in their submission that Mr Cotter’s claim for loss relief related to the 2008/09 year of assessment and so could not be included in his return for 2007/08.
David Richards J VC
[2011] EWHC 896 (Ch), [2011] STI 1522, [2011] BTC 282
England and Wales
Cited – Blackburn (HM Inspector of Taxes) v Keeling CA 21-Aug-2003
The tax payer sought to have reflected in his PAYE coding, his substantial trading losses arising from his activities as a Name /underwriter at Lloyds in 2003.
Held: The underwriting year 2003 ends in the year of assessment 2003/4, and . .
Cited – Autologic Holdings Plc and others v Commissioners of Inland Revenue HL 28-Jul-2005
Taxpayer companies challenged the way that the revenue restricted claims for group Corporation Tax relief for subsidiary companies in Europe. The issue was awaiting a decision of the European Court. The Revenue said that the claims now being made by . .
At ChD – Cotter v Revenue and Customs SC 6-Nov-2013
This appeal asked as to the boundary between the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and that of the county court or the High Court, and the legality of the approach which the Revenue took to entries which Mr Cotter, had made in a . .
Appeal From – HM Revenue and Customs v Cotter CA 8-Feb-2012
Mr Cotter’s accountants had submitted a second tax return adding claims to loss relief in the following year. The claims were contentious, but he invited a review by the Revenue asserting that the losses wiped out any liability to tax. The Revenue . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 08 September 2022; Ref: scu.434886
[2008] EWHC 710 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.266878
PROCEDURE – application for security for costs CPR Rule 25 – whether reason to believe appellant will be unable to pay respondents costs if ordered to do so – yes – whether just to make an order in the circumstances of the case – yes – application granted.
[2019] UKUT 229 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.643783
PENSIONS REGULATOR – reference of determination to issue contribution notice – reference struck out due to non-compliance with unless order – whether reference should be reinstated – Rules 2, 8 (1) (a), (5) and (6) and para 5 (2) Sch 3 Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.
[2019] UKUT 209 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.643782
FTTTx Application for substitution of a party – Tribunal Procedure Rule 9 – whether subject matter of appeal is assignable – effectiveness of assignment – whether to add or substitute a party
[2012] UKFTT 33 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.450819
FTTTx Penalty; late filing; fairness; s98A(2)(a) TMA 1970. Common law fairness. Conscionable conduct. Burden of proof. Jusilla v Finland. Article 6 ECHR.
[2011] UKFTT 479 (TC)
Taxes Management Act 1970 98A(2)(a)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.449472
FTTTx VAT Penalties – First and second surcharges imposed under S.59(C) TMA 1970 – Appellant unable to pay due to difficult trading conditions – says may have been able to pay had he known a surcharge would be imposed – whether reasonable excuse – no – surcharges confirmed.
[2011] UKFTT 496 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.449473
PENALTY for late filing of P35 (end of year PAYE) returns – whether a reasonable excuse had been shown for the late filing – Clerk to the Appellant communicated her address to HMRC but the requisite forms had not been sent to her – when she became aware of the issue she acted with reasonable promptness to file the returns – Appeal allowed
[2012] UKFTT 3 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.450816
FTTTx P35 return – Penalty for late return (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.98A)-Reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 625 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.449543
FTTTx Income tax – claim for repayment of supposedly overpaid tax – Schedule 1AB and 1A Taxes Management Act 1970 – HMRC issued closure notice rejecting the claim – appeal against HMRC’s rejection of claim – Tribunal not satisfied on the evidence that HMRC’s rejection of the claim was incorrect – appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 665 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.518628
The claimants challenged a decision by HMCR to deal only with their client taxpayers direct and not with them as their agents, saying that they had failed to provide an opportunity for representations to be made and to give adequate reasons for the decision.
Kenneth Parker J
[2011] EWHC 240 (Admin)
Taxes Management Act 1970 1, Commissioners for Revenue and Customs Act 2005 5
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.429684
Application for judicial review of the decision of the Respondent (‘HMRC’) to issue closure notices following inquiries into Aozora UK’s tax returns for certain accounting periods.
Underhilll VP, Rose LJJ, Sir Bernard Rix
[2019] EWCA Civ 1643
England and Wales
Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.642657
FTTTx Sub-contractors in the construction industry – Failure to make deductions from payments to sub-contractors – HMRC not satisfied payments taken into account on sub-contractors returns – determinations to pay amount not deducted – whether determinations in correct amount – amount partly reduced – insufficient evidence for further reduction – Appeal allowed in part – Regulation 13 of the Income tax (Construction Industry Scheme) Regulations 2005
[2011] UKFTT 17 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428201
[2010] UKUT B24 (TCC)
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428185
PROCEDURE – allocation to categories – Complex case – appeal from categorisation from decision of First-tier Tribunal categorising case as Standard – decision re-made by Upper Tribunal categorising case as Complex – Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
[2010] UKUT 373 (TCC), [2010] BVC 1574, [2011] STI 413, [2010] STC 2726
England and Wales
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428168
ECJ Opinion – Freedom of movement of persons – Freedom of establishment – Law on controlled foreign companies – Attribution to the parent company of the profits of its subsidiary established in another Member State as those profits arise – Obstacle – Justification – Counteraction of tax avoidance.
Leger AG
[2006] STC 1908, [2006] EUECJ C-196/04, [2006] EUECJ C-196/04O
European
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Pendragon Plc and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
‘This appeal is about an elaborate scheme designed and marketed by KPMG relating to demonstrator cars used by retail distributors for test drives and other internal purposes. In the ordinary course, a car distributor will buy new cars for use as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.241418
Income Tax : Penalties for Late Delivery of Tax Return
[2019] UKFTT 305 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.637907
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the ability of the FTTTx to debar it from defending.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed. The FTTTx faced a difficult binary choice, a draconian barring or allowing the Revenue to escape its failures: ‘I do not consider that it was on the wrong side of the line, given the combination of the nature and extent of HMRC’s failure to reply to BPP’s request, the length of the delay in rectifying the failure and the length of the consequential delay to the proceedings, the absence of any remedy to compensate BPP for the delay, and the absence of any explanation or excuse for the failure, coupled with the existence of other failures by HMRC to comply with directions.’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge
[2017] UKSC 55, [2017] 1 WLR 2945, [2017] STC 1655, [2017] BVC 36, [2017] 4 All ER 756, [2017] STI 1742, UKSC 2016/0069
Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170627 am video
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 8
England and Wales
At FTTTx – BPP University College of Professional Studies v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 1-Jul-2014
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred. . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v BPP Holdings Ltd and Others UTTC 3-Oct-2014
PROCEDURE – HMRC barred from further participation – FTT rule 8 – whether FTT applied correct principles – no – whether FTT’s decision outside reasonable exercise of judicial discretion – yes – decision set aside and remade – no barring order . .
At CA – BPP Holdings v Revenue and Customs CA 1-Mar-2016
HMRC had been debarred from further participation in the proceedings. BPP provided training courses, and the issue was as to the chargeability to VAT of books supplied between companies in the group. In the proceedings, HMRC repeatedly failed to . .
Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
Cited – Walbrook Trustee (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others CA 11-Mar-2008
Applications between consortium members as to management of apartment block.
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘ . . an appellate court should not interfere with case management decisions by a judge who has applied the correct principles and who has . .
Cited – Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 21-Jan-2009
The House was asked whether someone who wished to appeal against an extradition order had an obligation also to serve his appellant’s notice on the respondent within the seven days limit, and whether the period was capable of extension by the court. . .
Cited – Jones v First Tier Tribunal and Another SC 17-Apr-2013
The claimant had been injured when a lorry driver swerved to avoid hitting a man who stood in his path. He said that the deceased’s act of suicide amounted to an offence of violence under the 1861 Act so as to bring his own claim within the 2001 . .
Cited – Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and Others CA 4-Jul-2014
(De Laval Ltd, Part 20 defendant) (Practice Note) Several parties applied for relief from sanctions, having been refused at first instance:
Held: The court identified a three stage process. It should first calculate the seriousness and or . .
Cited – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others SC 16-Dec-2015
The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied . .
Cited – Hysaj v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
Applications for extensions of time to file an appeal should be taken the same as for applications for relief from sanctions, and should attract the same rigorous approach. There is no good reason to have a different approach for public law cases. . .
Cited – Prince Abdulaziz v Apex Global Management Ltd and Another SC 26-Nov-2014
The appellant was involved in very substantial litigation with the respondents. As a member of the Saudi Royal family he said that by convention he was not allowed to sign a witness statement, and appealed inter alia against orders requiring him to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.591174
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred.
Judge Mosedale
[2014] UKFTT 644 (TC)
England and Wales
Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v McCarthy and Stone (Developments) Limited, Monarch Realisations No 1 Plc (In Administration) UTTC 10-Jan-2014
UTTC Procedure – Application under Rule 5(3)(a) Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 for extension of time to provide notice of appeal to Upper Tribunal under Rule 23(2)(a) – effect of amendments to CPR . .
Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v BPP Holdings Ltd and Others UTTC 3-Oct-2014
PROCEDURE – HMRC barred from further participation – FTT rule 8 – whether FTT applied correct principles – no – whether FTT’s decision outside reasonable exercise of judicial discretion – yes – decision set aside and remade – no barring order . .
At FTTTx – BPP Holdings v Revenue and Customs CA 1-Mar-2016
HMRC had been debarred from further participation in the proceedings. BPP provided training courses, and the issue was as to the chargeability to VAT of books supplied between companies in the group. In the proceedings, HMRC repeatedly failed to . .
At FTTTx – BPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.534266
PROCEDURE – HMRC barred from further participation – FTT rule 8 – whether FTT applied correct principles – no – whether FTT’s decision outside reasonable exercise of judicial discretion – yes – decision set aside and remade – no barring order
Judge Bishopp
[2014] UKUT 496 (TCC), [2014] BVC 544, [2015] STC 415
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 8
England and Wales
Appeal from – BPP University College of Professional Studies v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 1-Jul-2014
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred. . .
Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
At UTTC – BPP Holdings v Revenue and Customs CA 1-Mar-2016
HMRC had been debarred from further participation in the proceedings. BPP provided training courses, and the issue was as to the chargeability to VAT of books supplied between companies in the group. In the proceedings, HMRC repeatedly failed to . .
At UTTC – BPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.539403
UTTC Procedure – Application under Rule 5(3)(a) Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008 for extension of time to provide notice of appeal to Upper Tribunal under Rule 23(2)(a) – effect of amendments to CPR 3.9 with effect from 1 April 2013 and Mitchell v News Group Newspapers Ltd – application refused
[2014] UKUT B1 (TCC)
England and Wales
Cited – BPP University College of Professional Studies v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 1-Jul-2014
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.520999
The court heard an adjourned application for a freezing order as regards the assets of the defendant.
Lissack QC J
[2011] EWHC 10 (QB)
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427995
[2011] BTC 56, [2011] STC 872, [2011] STI 255, [2010] EWCA Civ 1480
England and Wales
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427377
Penalties for non-submission of yearly CIS 36 Returns – No loss of tax to HMRC – Whether reasonable excuse – no – Whether HMRC should have exercised a discretion to mitigate the penalties under Section 102 TMA 1970 – Hardship and proportionality
[2010] UKFTT 409 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.426557
FTTTx Income tax PAYE – penalty for late payment – Sch 56 FA 2009 – effect of HMRC decision to delay assessing penalties until after year end – appeal dismissed
[2013] UKFTT 669 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.518622
FTTTx Penalty; late filing; fairness; s98A(2)(a) TMA 1970. Common law fairness. Conscionable conduct. Jusilla v Finland. ‘Reasonable excuse’ does not necessarily involve any exceptional circumstance. Honest and genuine belief amounts to ‘reasonable excuse’. Burden of proof.
[2011] UKFTT 472 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.443172
FTTTx Employer Annual Return – filed on time – P11Ds filed late – agent’s oversight – liability cannot be passed to agent – alleged non-receipt of interim penalty notice
[2014] UKFTT 606 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.526954
FTTTx Notice issued pursuant to Finance Act 2008 Sch 36 para 1 – Whether notice invalid on ground that notice of intention to enquire into the partnership return not given within the time allowed in Taxes Management Act 1970 s.12AC(2) – Appeal dismissed
[2010] UKFTT 484 (TC)
Taxes Management Act 1970 12AC(2)
England and Wales
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.426594
The taxpayer appealed against a decision confirming the Commissioners’ power to impose a penalty on him. It was said that his solicitors’ firm had negligently understated its profits. A settlement was proposed allowing a withdrawal of the return, which the claimant said was inconsistent with a penalty.
Held: There had been no error of law in the ruling appealed against. The appeal failed.
Sir John Lindsay
[2009] EWHC 2306 (Ch)
Taxes Management Act 1970 30B 95A
England and Wales
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners, ex parte the National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd HL 9-Apr-1981
Limitations on HMRC discretion on investigation
The Commissioners had been concerned at tax evasion of up to 1 million pounds a year by casual workers employed in Fleet Street. They agreed with the employers and unions to collect tax in the future, but that they would not pursue those who had . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Nuttall CA 1990
The Revenue and the taxpayer had agreed that the latter should pay andpound;15,000 in consideration of the Revenue taking no proceedings against him for tax penalties or interest. The taxpayer paid only andpound;5,000 and the Revenue sought summary . .
Cited – WH Cockerline and Co v Inland Revenue Commissioners 1930
Counsel had argued about the imposition of a penalty where no assessment had yet been made. Lord Hanworth MR said: ‘In language which was, perhaps, coloured by a warmth of feeling about it, he suggested that it was entirely wrong, and, indeed, made . .
Cited – Inland Revenue Commissioners v Woollen CA 1992
The taxpayer and three associated companies offered to the IRC an ‘investigation settlement agreement’. The amount agreed to be payable jointly and severally to IRC was not paid in full and the IRC obtained summary judgment for over . .
Cited – Khan and another v First East Brixton General Commissioners and Inland Revenue Commissioners 1986
. .
Cited – Lam v Inland Revenue Commissioners 2006
. .
Cited – Regina v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Matrix-Securities Ltd HL 1994
The House acknowledged the validity of pre-transaction rulings. Such rulings were of assistance both to the respondents and to the taxpayer. Lord Templeman referred to ‘[t]he trick of circular, self-cancelling payments with matching receipts and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.375133
The deceased and his wife had held their property as tenants in common in equal shares. The Special Commissioner had assessed the interest of the deceased in the property at less than one half of the vacant possession value.
Held: It was not part of the commissioner’s job to reach any conclusion as to the value of the deceased’s interest. Whether a purchaser would take into account the surviving wife’s interests in setting his bid, was also a matter for the Lands Tribunal to decide upon proper evidence.
Gloster J
[2004] EWHC 1720 (Ch), Times 04-Aug-2004, [2005] 1 WLR 1411
Inheritance Tax Act 1984 161 225, Special Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations 1994 (1994 No 1811) 23
England and Wales
Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.199376
Partnership return, section 12AA Taxes Management Act 1970 (‘TMA’) – late filing penalty, section 93A TMA – filing paper return after both paper and electronic deadline – failure of HMRC to provide free software for electronic filing of partnership return – appeal dismissed
[2010] UKFTT 536 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426655
FTTTx Application by HMRC for notice of appeal by taxpayer to be struck because assessment agreed and disposed of by taxpayer’s trustee in bankruptcy under s.54 TMA 1970 – HMRC claim taxpayer had no locus standi to appeal – agreement under s.54 disputed by taxpayer – application to strike out upheld.
[2010] UKFTT 509 (TC)
Updated: 28 August 2022; Ref: scu.426630
FTTTx Application for leave to appeal out of time – VAT assessment made in 1980 – no reasonable grounds offered for late appeal and no reasonable prospect of appeal succeeding – Rule 5(3)(a) – no extension of time granted.
[2010] UKFTT 488 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426617
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Applications by the parties for further directions – whether departure by HMRC unilaterally from the timetable for preparation for the appeal set down in agreed directions, causing additional delay in bringing the appeal on for hearing to the detriment of partners in the Appellant who had an interest in the outcome of the appeal, made it appropriate for the Tribunal to exercise its discretion to curtail further disclosure requested by HMRC and to refuse to make certain other directions which the Appellant submitted would, if made, lead to further delay – held although HMRC’s departure from the agreed timetable was a subject for criticism, the additional delay was not, in all the special circumstances of the case, sufficient to outweigh the requirement in the interests of justice and fairness for full disclosure – further directions made
[2010] UKFTT 448 (TC)
England and Wales
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs SCIT 17-Feb-2009
SCIT Closure notice – application for direction to close enquiry into tax return – limited liability partnership – s 28B Taxes Management Act 1970 – direction for closure within three months . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 22-Jun-2011
FTTTx Expert evidence – application for a direction to exclude expert evidence – whether expert evidence inadmissible on grounds that it is an opinion as to UK tax and therefore trespasses on the special . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 20-Apr-2012
FTTTx Income tax – limited liability partnership acquired licence to film rights and sub-licensed rights to distributor – complex financing arrangements involving loans to members of the partnership and . .
See Also – HM Revenue and Customs v Eclipse Film Partners No35 Llp UTTC 22-Mar-2013
UTTC Procedure – costs – whether, in a case where the taxpayer has opted out of the Complex costs regime, the First-tier Tribunal has the power to order that the parties share the costs of the appellant complying . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v Revenue and Customs CA 26-Feb-2014
The court was asked whether the First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) had jurisdiction to make an order that the costs of preparing hearing bundles for a substantive appeal by the appellant taxpayer should be shared equally between the taxpayer and the . .
See Also – Eclipse Film Partners No 35 Llp v HM Revenue and Customs CA 17-Feb-2015
Appeal against closure notice. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426570
FTTTx Procedure – costs – rule 10, Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 – whether Respondents had acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings
[2010] UKFTT 395 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.426543
INCOME TAX – application to set aside decision – refused – whether to treat application as one to correct, review or for permission to appeal – held no – HMRC asked to consider special reduction in light of new information Tribunal unable to act on.
[2019] UKFTT 261 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 27 August 2022; Ref: scu.637844
Procedure – application for extension of time for requesting full findings of fact and reasons for decision -application granted
[2019] UKFTT 521 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.641342
PAYE — Employer’s year-end return – penalty for late submission – whether submitted on time – no – whether penalty due – yes – whether penalty can be discharged on grounds of unfairness – no – whether HMRC’s maintenance prevented submission on time – no – whether penalty proportionate – yes – whether reasonable excuse for late submission – no – penalty confirmed
[2014] UKFTT 477 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.526841
FTTTx Construction industry scheme — withdrawal of gross payment status — whether reasonable excuse — held no — whether HMRC have discretion to withdraw gross payment status – jurisdiction of Tribunal to review HMRC decision — direction for appeal to be relisted for further argument.
[2010] UKFTT 377 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422364
FTTTx Late filing of self-assessment return – surcharges imposed under section 59C TMA 1970 for late payment of income tax. Late payment arose partly from error in tax code – whether reasonable excuse – no.
[2010] UKFTT 371 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422353
FTTTx PAYE- failure to return forms P35 and P14- P14 to be obtained from revenue – P35 returned on time but without form P14 – P35 returned late by revenue – further delay by appellant in re-submitting both forms – appellant had had similar problems in the past – no reasonable excuse – appeal dismissed.
[2010] UKFTT 322 (TC)
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422326
FTTTx Construction Industry Scheme – Appeal against cancellation of registration for gross payment – Failure of ‘Compliance test’ – Reliance on general manager – Trusted employee – Whether reasonable excuse on facts – Yes – Appeal allowed.
[2010] UKFTT 358 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422325
FTTTx Procedure – appeal out of time – appellant’s adviser failed to make valid appeal – HMRC pursuing winding-up order – former directors authorised by liquidator to conduct appeal
Roger Berner
[2010] UKFTT 305 (TC)
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422295
INCOME TAX : Surcharge – Late payment of income tax – Whether HMRC gave an undertaking not to charge penalties – no – no reasonable excuse for defaults – section 59C Taxes Management Act 1970
[2010] UKFTT 221 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422248
VALUE ADDED TAX RETURN – failure to furnish return – misdeclaration – failure to pay tax due – reasonable excuse – reliance on any other person – reliance on employed accountant – accountant responsible for late payment and misdeclaration – whether accountant’s ill health reasonable excuse for default – Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 71 – appeal dismissed.
[2010] UKFTT 211 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422239
FTTTx Discovery assessments and amendment to returns – Whether negligent in completing and filing incorrect returns – Yes – Appeal dismissed – s. 29 Taxes Management Act 1970 – Penalties – Whether correct amount – Appeal allowed in part – s 95 Taxes Management Act 1970
John Brooks TJ
[2010] UKFTT 271 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.422278
(Grand Chamber) The applicant alleged that he did not receive a fair hearing in the proceedings in which a tax surcharge was imposed as he was not given an oral hearing.
J-P Costa P
73053/01, [2006] ECHR 996, 9 ITL Rep 662, [2009] STC 29
European Convention on Human Rights
Human Rights
Cited – Chichester v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 18-Jun-2012
FTTTx Penalty; late payment; fairness; Jussila v Finland. ‘Reasonable excuse’. Honest and genuine belief amounts to ‘reasonable excuse’. Honest belief – test – purely subjective. Even an objectively unreasonable . .
Cited – Leachman (T/A Whiteley and Leachman) v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Apr-2011
VAT – PENALTIES – Reasonable excuse – mistake of fact as; Jusilla v Finland. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 August 2022; Ref: scu.246640
Claim for compound interest on reclaim of overpaid VAT.
Laws, Etherton, Sullivan LJJ
[2010] EWCA Civ 923
England and Wales
Updated: 22 August 2022; Ref: scu.421206
Application for judicial review of a decision by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs dated 25th April 2007 to disallow 101 claims made by the claimant, Huntingwood Trading Limited, in respect of excise duty drawback totalling andpound;1,263,865. The two grounds on which the claimant sought judicial review were first that the commissioners had engendered in the claimant a legitimate expectation that a certain course of action would be followed in relation to the making and paying of drawback claims; and that it is unfair and an abuse of power for the Commissioners to frustrate that legitimate expectation by refusing to make the payments.
Stadlen J
[2009] EWHC 290 (Admin)
England and Wales
Updated: 21 August 2022; Ref: scu.420984
The company objected to the search of its offices and removal by the defendant of its computers, the officers having entered without any warrant purporting to use powers under the 1989 Act.
Held: The request for judicial review failed. The power of inspection conferred by section 118 does extend to the inspection of a computer.
Lloyd Jones J
[2010] EWHC 1469 (Admin)
Customs and Excise Management Act 1979, Finance Act 2008 114
Cited – Demand and Supply Cash and Carry Ltd and Another v HM Revenue and Customs Admn 18-Dec-2009
The claimants challenged the removal of substantial quantities of alcohol and tobacco from their warehouses.
Held: One ground of challenge was that HMRC had acted unlawfully in removing and detaining a number of computers found at the . .
Cited – Oxfordshire County Council v Oxford City Council and others HL 24-May-2006
Application had been made to register as a town or village green an area of land which was largely a boggy marsh. The local authority resisted the application wanting to use the land instead for housing. It then rejected advice it received from a . .
Cited – H, Regina (on the Application of) v Commissioners of Inland Revenue Admn 23-Oct-2002
The appellant sought judicial review of the seizure by the respondents of computers found on its premises in the course of executing warrants under the Act, even though the computers might contain other matters not relevant to any investigation.
Cited – Regina v HM Commissioners of Customs and Excise ex parte Bottlestop Admn 14-May-1997
The company complained of the seizure and retention of items pursuant to a search warrant. The warrant authorised entry to the Claimant’s premises to ‘search for documents and other papers in relation to the movement of excisable goods’. In . .
Cited – Da Costa and Co (a Firm) and Collins v Thames Magistrates Court and H M Commissioners of Customs and Excise QBD 25-Jan-2002
The claimant sought to challenge search warrants issued by the respondents. The warrants were criticised as being too widely drawn, and in breach of the 1984 Act. Criticism was also made of the implementation of the searches, in the use of excess . .
Cited – Faisaltex Ltd and others, Regina (on the Application of) v Crown Court Sitting at Preston and others etc Admn 21-Nov-2008
Nine claimants sought leave to bring judicial review of the issue of search warrants against solicitors’ and business and other premises, complaining of the seizure of excluded material and of special procedure material. There were suspicions of the . .
Cited – Marlton v Tectronix UK Holdings ChD 10-Feb-2003
The court considered what was to be discovered under Part 31.4.1 of CPR. Pumfrey J expressly approved the commentary in the White Book: ‘A computer database which forms part of the business records for company is, in so far as it contains . .
Cited – Lee and Others v Solihull Magistrates Court and Another Admn 5-Dec-2013
The claimant challenged search warrants issued by the respondents, on the grounds first that the warrants were too wide in the description of the property which might be seized, that the description of property sought in the warrant was so wide that . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 19 August 2022; Ref: scu.417089
FTTTx PROCEDURE – application by HMRC to strike out proceedings – application by Appellant to adjourn – overriding objective and Article 6 of the Convention – adjournment application refused – Tribunal jurisdiction – HMRC’s application granted – unreasonable behaviour – costs
[2014] UKFTT 669 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 18 August 2022; Ref: scu.534291
FTTTX Costs – Transition appeal – Appeal withdrawn – Costs application made by HMRC within 28 days after withdrawal – Whether tribunal authorised to make costs award – Yes – TTF Order 2009 Sch 3 para 7
[2009] UKFTT 352 (TC)
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409177
FTTTx VAT – Security – Appellant a Solicitor and sole trader – Large debts incurred to HMRC in past – Bankruptcy petitions withdrawn – Appellant in default for 28 periods – Insufficient evidence of net worth – Whether power to impose penalties sufficient protection to the revenue – appeal dismissed
[2009] UKFTT 313 (TC)
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409124
FTTTx GROSS PAYMENT STATUS – Compliance test – Cancellation – Carpentry Business hit by drop in orders -Insufficient cash to pay tax liabilities on due dates – Whether reasonable excuse – Yes – Appeal allowed – Finance Act 2004 Schedule 11 para 4 (4).
[2009] UKFTT 288 (TC)
England and Wales
Updated: 17 August 2022; Ref: scu.409008