Ramachandren Narayansamy v HMRC
Decision date: 8 January 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 49 (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 case concerns Mr Narayansamy's application for costs after HMRC withdrew from defending an appeal about the valuation of goodwill following disposal of his solicitor's practice. The Tribunal found HMRC reasonably believed a £165,000 valuation had been agreed, only appreciating the disagreement after the Appellant's October 2022 witness statement, and that HMRC's later steps and April 2024 withdrawal were not unreasonable. The application for costs of £16,713 was refused.
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 application for costs under rule 10(1)(a)/(b) requires a finding of unreasonable or wasted conduct in the proceedings (not in the pre-appeal enquiry), judged from the relevant procedural cut-off; withdrawal from defending an appeal is assessed by (i) the reason for withdrawal, (ii) whether it could have occurred earlier, and (iii) whether it was unreasonable not to have withdrawn sooner. Applying those principles, HMRC's conduct here did not justify a costs award.
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 concern that HMRC only reviewed the goodwill valuation after the Appellant expressly confirmed the disagreement and observed the absence of any apology or explanation from SAV for its earlier valuation error; and it reiterated that cost-shifting in this Tribunal is exceptional and requires caution.
Warning
The chunk contains duplicated and verbose passages; the record is somewhat repetitive. Notes include duplicated and verbose passages and may be materially incomplete.