The Oaks (Gatley) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 4 July 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 594 (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
This appeal concerned TOGL's challenge to HMRC regulation 13 determinations totalling £324,993 and Schedule 55 penalties of £35,435.90 for failing to operate CIS and file CIS returns. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain general public law challenges to the making of regulation 13 determinations beyond correcting the amount under section 50 TMA, and on the facts rejected TOGL's substantive arguments (including legitimate expectation and procedural unfairness) and upheld the penalties. The appeals were dismissed.
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: high
Where regulation 13 determinations are treated as equivalent to income tax assessments under section 50 TMA, the First-tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction is confined to determining the correctness of the amount assessed and does not extend to general public law supervisory challenges to HMRC’s antecedent decision-making; such challenges should be pursued by judicial review.
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
The Tribunal noted HMRC’s Compliance Manual requires consideration of potential regulation 9 relief before issuing regulation 13 determinations but permits immediate determinations where there is a real risk of loss to the revenue (for example suspected liquidation). It also observed HMRC retains power to withdraw a regulation 13 determination and substitute a regulation 9 direction and that refusal to do so may be susceptible to public law review in the High Court.