C4C Investments Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 11 October 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 367 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
C4C sought permission to amend its appeal against Schedule 24 penalties for deliberate VAT inaccuracies to add grounds that the underlying transactions were not fraudulent and that C4C did not know (and should not have known) of any fraud. The First-tier Tribunal refused the late amendment as widening the dispute, lacking a realistic prospect of success, and causing disproportionate burden and delay. The tribunal also held that, on principle, HMRC's abuse of process objection would not have independently justified refusal. Case management directions were given and permission to appeal was noted.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
An amendment application will be refused when it is late, would materially widen the dispute, has no realistic prospect of success, and would impose disproportionate burden and delay. In assessing such applications the tribunal may draw adverse inferences where a party previously accepted a factual characterisation and did not previously advance the alternative explanation being sought to be introduced.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
It was suggested (obiter) that raising in a penalty appeal issues that were not previously litigated in relation to an underlying assessment is not inherently an abuse of process, and that failure to appeal an underlying assessment does not automatically amount to abuse where there have been no prior tribunal determinations; context and prior litigation history matter.