Cases | PropLit

HOGAN LOVELLS CADWALADER INTERNATIONAL LLP v THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS [2026] UKFTT 1502 (TC) 29 October 2026 This case concerns an HMRC challenge to legal‑advice privilege claims over three HLI documents prepared in 2013–2014 about an "imbalance issue" connected to a Cooperation Agreement. The First-tier Tribunal held the Corporate Member Executive Summary and the February Paper privileged and not disclosable, and ordered a redacted disclosure of the PG Slides with legal advice removed. The Tribunal accepted that the documents were authored by identified lawyers, treated contemporaneous documents as highly important while giving weight to witness evidence, and allowed a stay of disclosure pending any appeal application.

Crescendo Entertainment Ltd (now in liquidation) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1495 (TC) 28 October 2026 This appeal challenged HMRC notices of requirement to give security (NORs) issued 12 March 2025 to Crescendo Entertainment Ltd and its sole director for PAYE and NICs totalling £186,984.78. The tribunal held the decision-maker knew the appellants were impecunious, failed to consider their ability to pay or hardship, and so the NORs were unreasonable and disproportionate. After the company was wound up and HMRC declined to pursue the director, the tribunal allowed the appeals and set the NORs aside.

Florin Merosu v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1497 (TC) 28 October 2026 This decision concerns Mr Florin Merosu's application to reinstate a Tribunal appeal struck out for failure to comply with an unless direction requiring evidence of an antecedent appeal to HMRC. The judge applied the Martland/Denton three-stage test for relief from sanctions, found the non-compliance serious and the reasons not persuasive, and concluded the Tribunal presently lacked jurisdiction because no valid appeal to HMRC had been made or admitted; reinstatement and a stay were refused. The decision notes the appellant can still pursue a late appeal to HMRC or seek the Tribunal's permission to give notice out of time if HMRC refuses.

Frasers Group Financial Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1496 (TC) 28 October 2026 This appeal concerned whether photography and modelling costs were exclusively attributable to taxable supplies of goods or were residual and therefore attributable also to VAT-exempt credit supplies, whether HMRC's use of the standard turnover method to apportion residual marketing costs was fair and reasonable, whether an amended 2023 PESM provided a more precise apportionment, and whether two specific assessments were in time. The Tribunal held the photography and modelling costs were residual, upheld HMRC's use of the standard turnover method, dismissed Studio’s amended 2023 PESM, and found the challenged 09/19 and 03/20 assessments were within the s.73(6)(b) time limits. All of Studio’s appeals were dismissed.

Kabir Sharif v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1498 (TC) 28 October 2026 This case concerned whether a 10 May 2023 HMRC letter to the taxpayer amounted to a statutory notice opening an enquiry into the 2021/22 Self Assessment return, which would have rendered a later 5 December 2023 formal Enquiry Notice invalid as a second enquiry. The Tribunal held that, on the objective test, a reasonable taxpayer in the appellant's circumstances would not have understood the 10 May Letter to open an enquiry, so the December Enquiry Notice is valid and the application to close that enquiry fails. The enquiry therefore remains open.

OMID DJALILI v THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS [2026] UKFTT 1501 (TC) 28 October 2026 This case concerned an application by Mr Omid Djalili for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC closure notices for tax years 2010–2015. The Tribunal applied the established three-stage approach (length of delay; reasons for default; balancing prejudice and merits) and found the 13 months 28 days delay serious, that the appellant had not proven reasonable reliance on non-disclosure or adviser/STAG advice, and that he did not act promptly after disclosure. Permission to bring the late appeal was refused.

Cambridge Park and Leisure Homes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1492 (TC) 27 October 2026 This appeal concerned a claim by a VAT-registered park operator to recover input tax outside the four-year limits in Regulations 29(1A) and 34(1A) VATR. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's factual allegations (severe illness, good faith, attempted earlier contact, later corrective steps) for the purposes of HMRC's strike-out application but held that the Regulations are mandatory and contain no power for HMRC or the Tribunal to disapply or extend the four-year time limits. Because, even on the pleaded facts, the appeal had no realistic prospect of success, it was struck out under Rule 8(3)(c). The appellant has 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

K v The Director of Border Revenue [2026] UKFTT 1490 (TC) 27 October 2026 This appeal concerns an application for anonymity by K in proceedings challenging the Director of Border Revenue's refusal to restore goods seized at East Midlands Airport, where PNC records showed a 2014 German conviction that is now spent. The Tribunal held that the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 does not by itself give a substantive right to anonymity in Tribunal proceedings, but that publication of the appellant's name would interfere with his Article 8 rights because the appeal necessarily involves discussion of his spent conviction. Balancing Article 8 against the open justice principle and Article 10, the Tribunal granted anonymisation as necessary and proportionate; the substantive appeal remains undecided.

Matthew James v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1491 (TC) 27 October 2026 Mr James sought permission to bring a 139-day late appeal against HMRC’s Review Conclusion Letter of 24 July 2025 which upheld but reduced a Personal Liability Notice to £11,137. The Tribunal applied the three-stage test for late notification (length of delay; reasons for default; overall balancing including merits and prejudice), found the delay serious, concluded Mr James had knowingly elected not to appeal and only changed course after failed payment negotiations, and refused permission to pursue the late appeal. The Tribunal did find the appeal had reasonable prospects but that factor did not outweigh the other considerations.

Fucius Capital Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1489 (TC) 26 October 2026 Fucius Capital appealed Schedule 26 late-payment VAT penalties for period 07/25, arguing it had a reasonable excuse because its director relied on professional email advice to delay submission and (he believed) payment. The Tribunal accepted the factual account and genuine reliance but held that reliance on professional advice, while potentially a reasonable excuse, was not objectively reasonable here given the sums and risk of penalties and the absence of any attempt to seek clarification. The appeal was dismissed.

Michael Cohen v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1486 (TC) 26 October 2026 This appeal concerned whether a £362,830 director’s loan account (DLA) written off on BEL’s liquidation was chargeable to income tax in 2020/21, whether HMRC’s closure notice amending Mr Cohen’s 2020/21 return was valid, and whether the penalty for omission was correctly categorised. The Tribunal found the DLA was written off in 2020/21 and chargeable income, upheld the closure notice so the amendment stands, but determined the omission was careless (not deliberate) and ordered the penalty to be re‑categorised and recalculated with appropriate mitigations.

Shelley Fullerton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1479 (TC) 26 October 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC's discovery assessment and a Schedule 24 penalty arising from a directors' loan account write‑off following Equus Human Capital Ltd's liquidation and a 2018 Settlement Agreement. The Tribunal accepted HMRC's DLA balance of £838,609, found a written‑off amount of £741,958.36, held HMRC made a valid and timely discovery assessment, and concluded the understatement resulted from carelessness so the Schedule 24 penalty was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Andrius Kazlauskas v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1476 (TC) 23 October 2026 Mr Andrius Kazlauskas applied for permission to bring a five‑years‑nine‑months late appeal against HMRC assessments for excise duty (£16,588) and a penalty (£6,386) arising from seizure of hand‑rolling tobacco. The First‑tier Tribunal applied the established three‑stage test (length of delay; reasons for delay; evaluation of all circumstances including merits and prejudice) and, balancing the serious delay, weak merits and the need for efficient litigation and respect for statutory time limits, refused permission to admit the appeal out of time. The Tribunal had previously granted a Hardship Application but nonetheless dismissed the late‑appeal application; the appellant was given the right to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 within 56 days.

Baser Ahmed v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1475 (TC) 23 October 2026 HMRC applied for permission to rely on a Statement of Case served about 30 days late in breach of a Tribunal direction; the Tribunal applied the three‑stage Denton/Martland analysis. The Tribunal found the default serious and HMRC’s explanation materially incomplete, but concluded that, on balance, relief from sanctions should be granted and HMRC may rely on the Statement of Case served 5 August 2026.

Inngrays Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1478 (TC) 23 October 2026 This case concerned whether an electrical substation at the rear of a five‑flat dwelling formed part of the dwelling's "garden or grounds" for SDLT purposes. The Tribunal found the substation was on a separately leased, long‑standing exclusive occupation with a self‑standing commercial function and therefore did not form part of the residential grounds. The acquisition was held to be mixed‑use and the appeal was allowed.

Rachel Maddock v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1477 (TC) 23 October 2026 This appeal concerned whether works replacing a bungalow with a larger two‑storey house qualified as "construction of a building" under s35(1A)(a) VATA or were excluded as conversion/reconstruction/alteration of an existing building under Note 16 to Schedule 8. The Tribunal found the approved plans retained multiple substantial parts of the original bungalow above ground level, so Note 18(b)'s single‑façade limit was not met and the works amounted to reconstruction/alteration within Note 16. The claimant's VAT refund was disallowed and the appeal dismissed.

Adrian Vlad and Ion Grab v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1487 (TC) 22 October 2026 This case concerned applications by Adrian Vlad and Ion Grab for permission to admit late appeals against HMRC decisions. The Tribunal applied the Martland test, found substantial unexplained delays, held that although their shared accountant misled them the appellants should have taken independent steps once warning signs emerged (March 2022 for Grab, July 2022 for Vlad), and refused permission to admit the late appeals. The appeals were dismissed.

D Brown & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1484 (TC) 22 October 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC’s closure notice reducing reported 2015/16 partnership profits of £146,013 to nil on the basis that the income arose from Mr Brown’s employment with Subsea 7 and was contractually payable to him personally. The First-tier Tribunal found the payments were earned under Mr Brown’s minimum-days employment contract while he was an employee and did not constitute partnership income. The Tribunal rejected the appellants’ arguments that ITTOIA 2005 s.15 or related authorities converted those employment earnings into partnership income or created a trade owned by the partnership. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s amendment upheld.

L W Joinery & Flooring Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1485 (TC) 22 October 2026 This appeal concerned whether the sole director's reference salary for CJRS purposes in the relevant period was £2,996 or £512. The Tribunal preferred contemporaneous RTI and payroll submissions (notably the 5 March 2020 RTI) over later payslips, bank entries and witness recollection, and found the Company did not prove the higher salary on the balance of probabilities. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's assessments were upheld.

Gordon Berry v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1451 (TC) 20 October 2026 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 late‑filing penalties imposed on Mr Gordon Berry for the 2023/24 self‑assessment return, with HMRC assessing fixed, daily and six‑month penalties (a 12‑month penalty was struck out for lack of Tribunal jurisdiction). The Tribunal found HMRC had properly issued and calculated the penalties, that Mr Berry did not establish a reasonable excuse for the whole period of default nor remedied the failure without unreasonable delay, and dismissed the appeal except insofar as the 12‑month penalty was struck out.

Lindsey Prodger v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1441 (TC) 20 October 2026 This case concerns an application for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) and associated failure-to-notify penalties. The Tribunal found a delay of over four years, concluded the Appellant had not shown good reasons for the delay, and refused permission to bring a late appeal; it also proceeded with the hearing in the Appellant's absence after finding reasonable steps had been taken to notify him. Some substantive HICBC issues had been resolved between the parties before the hearing.

Mohamed Al Marri v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1450 (TC) 20 October 2026 This appeal by a Qatar‑resident non‑resident landlord challenged four Schedule 24 penalties for careless inaccuracies in his 2021–2024 Self‑Assessment returns. The First‑tier Tribunal proceeded in his absence, found each inaccuracy careless on the prudent‑taxpayer standard, upheld HMRC’s quantification at the 15% prompted‑disclosure rate, refused to suspend the penalties, and dismissed the appeal. Total penalties of £4,217.61 were upheld.

Portsmouth City Council v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1462 (TC) 20 October 2026 Portsmouth City Council appealed HMRC's refusal to repay VAT charged on Home Improvement Agency (HIA) fees for Disabled Facilities Grants. The tribunal found HIA services are closely linked and integral to delivering welfare (DFG) adaptations but held they fall outside the Article 132(1)(g) exemption because Article 134(a) excludes them: the underlying building works are not exempt transactions. The appeals were dismissed and HMRC's refusal to repay VAT upheld.

Constantin Surugiu v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1460 (TC) 19 October 2026 This appeal concerned eleven HMRC penalties (2018–2022) totalling £2,796 and broader complaints by the appellant about alleged long-running identity fraud and other tax liabilities. Permission to bring the appeal out of time was granted and HMRC conceded the penalties, so the Tribunal allowed (cancelled) those eleven penalties. The Tribunal declined to determine the appellant's wider complaints or alleged liabilities because no appealable HMRC decisions on those matters were before it.

Foy Wealth Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1061 (TC) 19 October 2026 Foy Wealth Limited challenged HMRC decisions of 2 July 2018 (compulsory VAT registration, assessment and penalty) on the ground that its 26 July 2018 request for a statutory review was never notified as concluded by HMRC. The Tribunal found the July 2018 correspondence was a valid review request, that no document before the Tribunal amounted to a notification of review conclusions (so no "conclusion date" under s.83(7) VATA 1994 arose), and therefore under s.83(5) the appellant acquired the right to appeal once the review period expired; the 8 January 2026 appeal was not out of time and the appeal was ordered to proceed. The Tribunal did not decide the alternative late-permission application or the substantive merits.

Jonathan Kennaugh v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1437 (TC) 19 October 2026 The appellant, Mr Kennaugh, appealed a Simple Assessment of £5,831.22 but accepted its substance and instead complained about HMRC administrative errors, complaint handling, delay, and data-protection issues. The First-tier Tribunal held those complaints do not bear on the statutory correctness of the Simple Assessment and so are outside its jurisdiction, and struck the appeal out under Rule 8(2)(a) (alternatively as having no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 8(3)(c)). Permission to appeal was noted as available within 56 days.

PM Consulting Nistorescu Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1452 (TC) 19 October 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments recovering Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments claimed by PM Consulting Nistorescu Ltd for its sole director/employee. The Tribunal preferred the Company's original timesheets, found on the balance of probabilities that the director did not cease all work for a consecutive 21-day period in April–June 2020 and so those early claims failed, accepted HMRC's reduced calculations for later periods, varied the 2023 assessments to £26,553.65 and reduced the 2024 assessments to nil. The appeal was allowed in part.

Unatrade Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1438 (TC) 19 October 2026 This appeal concerned Unatrade's claim to recover 90% of input VAT for periods 07/23–11/23 where HMRC refused most of the claims because valid Regulation 14 VAT invoices were not held and alternative evidence under Regulation 29(2) was insufficient. The Tribunal found that the till receipts and other documents did not evidence the VAT charged to the required degree and that HMRC properly exercised its discretion to allow only 10% of the claimed input tax (the appeal was dismissed). HMRC's extrapolation of the 07/23 findings to later periods was upheld given the same business model and pervasive evidential deficiency.

Take 3.9 TV Partnership & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1461 (TC) 15 October 2026 This case concerns how to apportion non-Peakviewing profits and losses of four Take 3 partnerships between the T3 Equity (trading) and T3 Debt (non‑trading) components. The First‑tier Tribunal accepted the Respondents' apportionment method and figures for 2001/02, but for 2002/03 adopted a modified method that separates gross income and gross expenditure, apportions each by partner/debt funding using Production Schedules, and nets the results to identify the equity share. The Tribunal set final trading and non‑trading figures for Take 3.9, 3.10, 3.12 and 3.13 and recorded appeal rights.

Abbey Group Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1418 (TC) 13 October 2026 Abbey Group reclaimed input VAT on free carpets supplied with new-build homes; HMRC issued a s.73(2) assessment for periods 07/19 and 02/23. The First-tier Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction under s.83(1)(p) VATA to determine Abbey's public-law legitimate-expectation defence to that assessment and, on the merits, would in any event have rejected Abbey's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment corrected to £332,948.12.

Avios Group (AGL) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1405 (TC) 12 October 2026 This case concerns AGL’s February 2025 application to stay its appeal against a Schedule 36 information notice issued by HMRC pending resolution of related VAT appeals and a judicial review. The Tribunal refused the multi‑year stay, finding AGL had not shown that a stay would better serve the fair and just disposal of the case and that statutory provisions and risks from prolonged delay weighed against postponement.

Easytruck Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1412 (TC) 9 October 2026 Easytruck Limited applied under Rule 16 for HMRC documents and statements relating to certain cheques said to affect a VAT assessment. The Tribunal dismissed the disclosure application as the material was not relevant to the principal issue of entitlement to input tax, refused to consider the Company's late draft Reply, and imposed final directions requiring service of any further evidence within 14 days with a strike‑out warning.

Future Fuels No.1 v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1407 (TC) 9 October 2026 Future Fuels applied to admit further expert evidence and for extensions of time but failed to comply with the Tribunal's practice statement and later directions requiring prior consultation with HMRC. The Tribunal refused the July application for inadequate consultation and refused the 26 August and 7 September applications for breaching the 24 August directions, declining to determine their substantive merits. The appellant may reapply but must follow the Tribunal's directions; rights to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 within 56 days were recorded.

M and N Beauty Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1411 (TC) 9 October 2026 This appeal concerned a civil evasion penalty of £181,201 imposed after Border Force seized 506,400 concealed cigarettes in a container consigned to M and N Beauty Ltd. The Tribunal found that the cigarettes were deliberately concealed within boxes presented as the Appellant’s own goods, rejected key witness accounts as unreliable or fabricated, and applied the Ivey test to conclude the Appellant knew of the concealed cigarettes and acted dishonestly. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty confirmed, with no further mitigation granted.

My Club Web Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1417 (TC) 9 October 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of EIS relief for shares issued by My Club Web Services Ltd between 6 April 2018 and 31 October 2020, focusing on whether the company met the statutory trading requirement under s.181(2) throughout each relevant three-year Period B. The Tribunal found contemporaneous evidence of steps to trade ceased after the bank account closure and that the appellant had not shown, on the balance of probabilities, that it continued beyond 26 March 2021 to exist wholly for the purpose of carrying on a qualifying trade. Because each Period B extended beyond that date the Tribunal dismissed the appeal in full. The Tribunal did not reach s.183 issues as s.181 findings were dispositive.

Michael Fury v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1416 (TC) 8 October 2026 This appeal challenged HMRC discovery assessments and Schedule 24 deliberate penalties for 2015/16 and 2016/17. The Tribunal held HMRC validly made discoveries and that Mr Fury had deliberately not disclosed material income and accounts, but found HMRC mis‑quantified tax and penalties by treating him as receiving 100% of EMR receipts rather than a 13% commission. The appeal was allowed in part and the matter remitted for recalculation on the 13% basis with appropriate expense, personal allowance and interest adjustments.

Smaira Ghani v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1410 (TC) 8 October 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Mrs Ghani's 16 June 2025 Tribunal Notice of Appeal for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held the attached 14 April 2025 Statement of Liabilities was not an HMRC decision and therefore not appealable, so the Notice did not identify an appealable decision and the appeal was struck out. HMRC later issued a 4 November 2025 decision refusing Mrs Ghani's appeal against a late‑payment penalty, which may in principle be the subject of a separate (timely or permissioned late) appeal.

Bowland Inns and Hotels Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1409 (TC) 7 October 2026 Bowland Inns sought permission to appeal out of time against an HMRC assessment of 18 August 2025; the appeal was 134 days late and the Tribunal dismissed the application. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage test for late permission, found the delay was caused by an administrative error by Bowland’s advisers (KPMG), treated that as Bowland’s failure, and held the explanation was not satisfactory. The application for late permission was refused; standard rights to seek permission to appeal that refusal were noted.

Dwyer O’Neill v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1408 (TC) 7 October 2026 This case concerned HMRC's application to strike out Mr Dwyer O'Neill's appeal after HMRC withdrew the underlying personal liability notice (PLN). The Tribunal held that, once the PLN was withdrawn, there was no longer an appealable decision and it therefore lacked jurisdiction; it struck out the appeal and dismissed Mr O'Neill’s applications to join or stay related proceedings.

Umar Hussain v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1415 (TC) 5 October 2026 This case concerns an application by Umar Hussain to reinstate permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC "view of the matter" decisions, after repeated failures to comply with Tribunal directions and unless orders. The Tribunal found the delay and breaches were significant, the stated reasons (family illness, personal ill-health, inability to obtain bank documents) did not justify continued non-compliance, and that prejudice and the need for efficient litigation outweighed the appellant's interest. The reinstatement application was refused.

Education Training Collective v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1381 (TC) 2 October 2026 This appeal concerned whether s 80 VATA could be read conformingly (Marleasing) to allow a purchaser, who paid VAT later found to be zero-rated and whose supplier was insolvent, to claim repayment from HMRC and thereby give the First-tier Tribunal jurisdiction. The Tribunal held it was bound by the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Earlsferry UT that purchaser "Reemtsma" claims are pursued in ordinary courts and that VATA need not be read to confer Tribunal jurisdiction. The First-tier Tribunal therefore lacked jurisdiction and struck the appeal out under rule 8(2)(a).

Excel Building Contractors Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1379 (TC) 2 October 2026 Excel Building Contractors Ltd sought reinstatement of an appeal struck out for failure to comply with Tribunal Unless Orders ordering disclosure of medical evidence and other matters. The FTT applied the three‑stage Martland approach, found multiple and mostly serious breaches, that the appellant's stated ill health was unsupported by evidence, and that reinstatement was not justified. The application for reinstatement was refused.

Lindsay Hackett v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1378 (TC) 2 October 2026 This appeal challenged 17 Personal Liability Notices issued to Mr Lindsay Hackett under paragraph 19 of Schedule 24 following Schedule 24 penalties assessed on his company Intekx for inaccurate VAT returns. The Tribunal found HMRC proved the company’s return inaccuracies for July 2009–October 2012 were deliberate (several periods were deliberate and concealed), that those deliberate inaccuracies were attributable to Mr Hackett as sole director, and that the PLNs were valid and correctly reflected the penalties; the appeal was dismissed.

Olufemi Salami v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1380 (TC) 2 October 2026 This case concerns Mr Olufemi Salami's appeal against an HMRC assessment withdrawing EIS income tax relief after HMRC notified the company its shares were not EIS-eligible. The First-tier Tribunal struck the appeal out for want of jurisdiction, holding that challenges to HMRC's conduct and procedural fairness fall outside the Tribunal's statutory remit under s235 ITA and must be pursued, if at all, by other means. The Tribunal did not decide HMRC's alternative submission that the appeal had no reasonable prospects.

Animal Comfort Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1377 (TC) 1 October 2026 This case concerns late appeals by Animal Comfort Ltd against an HMRC liability decision (duty assessed on imported steel pipes) and HMRC’s refusal to remit that duty. The Tribunal decided it could determine the application for permission to bring late appeals even though a hardship application and unpaid duty remained, allowed amendment of the notice to add the liability decision, and granted permission for the late appeals. The proceedings were stayed pending resolution of the hardship application.

Baillie Gifford China Growth Trust PLC v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1434 (TC) 29 September 2026 This appeal concerned whether a HMRC letter dated 20 May 2025 amounted to a closure notice ending enquiries, and whether s 806(2) ICTA permits claims for the full amount of double tax relief (DTR) on dividends returned as exempt where management expenses in the year block immediate use of that relief. The Tribunal held the 20 May 2025 letter was a closure notice as a reasonable recipient with the relevant context would understand it to close the enquiries, and that BGCG’s s 806(2) claims extend to the full DTR to which it was entitled, including carry‑forward of DTR blocked by management expenses. Directions were given for the parties to seek agreement and, if unresolved, to return to the Tribunal.

The Applicants and Appellants in the Post Prudential Closure Notice Applications/Appeals Group Litigation v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1435 (TC) 29 September 2026 The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decided eight test cases remitted by the Court of Appeal concerning closure‑notice applications and appeals by investment funds about dividend taxation and overseas tax credits. The FTT applied agreed factual findings, refused several closure‑notice applications, dismissed certain appeals, accepted a 31 March 2010 EY letter as a valid protective claim for foreign tax credit at the FNR for both EU/EEA and non‑EU dividends on the agreed facts, preferred Fidelity’s calculation methodology and directed repayments accordingly, and held that DTR claimed in one year but blocked by management expenses must be carried forward and automatically available in later years without a further claim.

Simon Lindley Keswick & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1359 (TC) 28 September 2026 This was a case management hearing of multiple related tax appeals and a pending judicial review (JR). The Tribunal allowed joinder and re-allocation of the tax appeals as Complex, refused a stay of those appeals pending the JR, and dismissed the application to consolidate the Tribunal appeals and the JR before a single High Court judge; case management directions were given. Parties were directed to propose further directions and retained liberty to apply; permission to appeal preserved.

S.T.M Adam Wierzbicki v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1360 (TC) 25 September 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC's decision to offer restoration of a seized tractor and trailer on payment of £6,845 after goods (beer) liable to duty were found in the trailer and documentation could not be verified as relating to those goods. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to challenge the legality of the seizure and limited its review to whether HMRC's restoration decision was unreasonable. The Tribunal found HMRC had considered the available documents, proportionality and hardship and that the decision to offer restoration on the stated terms was within the range of reasonable responses, so the appeal was dismissed.

Geoffrey Khan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1362 (TC) 24 September 2026 This case concerns whether an earlier appeal against a Personal Liability Notice was effectively finally determined under section 85(4) VATA after the appellant's authorised representatives withdrew that earlier appeal and HMRC did not object within 30 days. The Tribunal found the statutory conditions of s.85(4) were met, treated the withdrawal as a deemed determination in HMRC's favour, and held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the later 2025 appeal; HMRC's strike-out application under rule 8(2)(a) succeeded.

RDM Wines Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1348 (TC) 24 September 2026 RDM Wines appealed HMRC’s disallowance of an R&D tax relief claim for the period to 31 October 2021, relying on contractor Riebeek’s canning work. The Tribunal found RDM had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, a qualifying R&D project that sought an advance in science or technology beyond industry knowledge and placed little weight on late-produced letters and reconstructed evidence. The appeal was dismissed; quantum was not considered.

The Nigel Blackwell Family Trust & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1361 (TC) 24 September 2026 This appeal concerns whether a Loan and Security Agreement (LSA) should be treated as a "security" for EIS deferral relief and whether the appellants could adduce expert evidence about marketability and hypothetical third‑party purchasers. The Tribunal refused permission for that expert evidence, holding the legal characterisation is an objective assessment of the debt's characteristics in its commercial context and that the proposed evidence was unnecessary, not reasonably required and disproportionate. The Tribunal also found no sufficiently defined issue of New York law requiring expert determination. Parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

Andrew Parnham t/a Parnham Transport & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1347 (TC) 22 September 2026 This case concerns whether the Appellants complied with an "unless" direction requiring them to send lists of documents and copies to both HMRC and the Tribunal by 5pm on 3 June 2026. The Tribunal found the Appellants did not comply (they emailed the Tribunal but did not copy HMRC) and therefore their appeals were automatically struck out under Rule 8(1). The Tribunal held the overriding objective does not negate the automatic strike-out, although it remains relevant to any reinstatement application. The Appellants may apply for reinstatement under Rule 8(5) within the time limits set by the decision.

Philip Baker v Treasury of The Isle of Man [2026] UKFTT 1458 (TC) 22 September 2026

Andrew Parish v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1350 (TC) 18 September 2026 This case concerns Andrew Parish’s appeal against a personal liability notice issued under Schedule 24 following a tribunal decision denying input tax on Kittel grounds. HMRC sought to strike out parts of the appeal and argued Schedule 24 penalties could be used; the appellant contended that for VAT periods commencing on/after 16 November 2017 penalties must be imposed under the post‑2017 VAT penalties regime (ss 69C/69D VATA). The tribunal refused broad strike‑out, concluding the appellant’s core challenge that the newer regime may displace Schedule 24 has a realistic prospect of success and merits fuller argument, while disallowing certain late or unpleaded points.

HQ Foods (B'Ham) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1349 (TC) 18 September 2026 This case concerns an appeal by HQ Foods against two C18 customs duty assessments totaling £47,922.76 where the appellant failed to pay the disputed duty or provide adequate security after its hardship application was dismissed. The First-tier Tribunal directed payment by a specified deadline; the appellant missed that deadline and only paid after it expired. The Tribunal struck the appeal out for lack of jurisdiction under Rule 8(2)(a) because the statutory condition for entertaining an appeal was not met, and alternatively under Rule 8(3)(c) as there was no realistic prospect of success on the substantive claim.

John Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1351 (TC) 18 September 2026 This appeal concerned whether Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) applied to the purchase of Huntbourne on 14 December 2023 by reason of an Annexe on the single-title property being "used or suitable for use as a single dwelling" under Schedule 6B para 7(2)(a) FA 2003. The Tribunal found the Annexe had facilities to meet basic domestic needs but, applying an objective multi‑factorial test at completion, lacked sufficient privacy and security to be suitable as a separate dwelling. The appeal was dismissed and MDR was not allowed.

Kearney Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1357 (TC) 18 September 2026 Kearney Transport Ltd appealed HMRC assessments and wrongdoing penalties after beer found on two of its vehicles was seized. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Kearney was the person "holding" the excise goods because the vehicles and drivers were its resources and the drivers had received instructions from a company director, and it upheld the duty assessments and penalties in full. The appeal was dismissed.

Lewis Conman v The Commissions for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1352 (TC) 18 September 2026 This case concerned HMRC's application to strike out Mr Conman's appeal for want of jurisdiction under Rule 8(2)(a) on the basis that the appellant had not given the notice of appeal to HMRC required by section 49 TMA before notifying the Tribunal. The Tribunal found no evidence the statutory notice had been given to HMRC prior to notification to the Tribunal and struck the appeal out for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal did not decide HMRC's alternative Rule 8(3)(c) contention.

Rahim Dhanani v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1358 (TC) 18 September 2026 This case management decision concerned whether HMRC could, late in the proceedings, amend its Statement of Case and adduce expert valuation evidence in response to the Appellant’s DCF report. The Tribunal refused HMRC’s application to amend, granted the Appellant permission to rely on its factual and expert evidence, and dismissed HMRC’s expert-evidence application as no longer pursued. The appeal therefore proceeds on the original pleadings with the Appellant’s expert report admitted.

Sir John Griffin v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1319 (TC) 15 September 2026 This appeal concerned whether Sir John Griffin was domiciled in England or Ireland for tax years 2013/14–2019/20. The Tribunal found his father acquired an English domicile of choice before Sir John reached majority—meaning Sir John acquired an English domicile of dependence—and alternatively found Sir John had independently acquired an English domicile of choice before 6 April 2013. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s closure notices were upheld.

Minerva Research Labs Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1320 (TC) 14 September 2026 This appeal concerned whether 18 collagen‑based liquid "Products" sold by Minerva were zero‑rated as "food of a kind used for human consumption" for VAT purposes. The Tribunal applied a multi‑factorial test, giving significant weight to how the Products were held out for sale and the consumers' purpose (cosmetic/anti‑ageing dosing regimens, pharmacy sales, warnings), and concluded those factors outweighed nutritional characteristics. The Tribunal refused the appeal and upheld HMRC's decision that the Products are standard‑rated.

Chandra Bahadur KC v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1300 (TC) 10 September 2026 This appeal concerned whether Mr KC, who took over a takeaway business from Wok to Box Limited, was properly liable for VAT registration. The Tribunal found the business was transferred as a going concern on 12 November 2019, that Wok to Box Limited's taxable supplies in the relevant year exceeded the VAT registration threshold, and that the paragraph 1(3) exception did not apply. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's registration of Mr KC was varied to take effect from 12 November 2019.

Environmental Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1301 (TC) 10 September 2026 This appeal concerned ESL's claim for R&D tax relief for two periods; HMRC issued closure notices disallowing the claims. The Tribunal found ESL did undertake practical innovation but did not prove the activities met the BEIS/statutory R&D definition (advance in overall scientific/technological knowledge/capability) nor that claimed expenditure was attributable to qualifying R&D. The appeal was dismissed.

Its Plant-Tech Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1299 (TC) 10 September 2026 ITS Plant‑Tech Ltd outsourced payroll to two payroll companies and claimed input tax on VAT charged on payroll-related invoices, including amounts representing wages and employers' National Insurance contributions. HMRC issued assessments denying part of the input tax; the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that ITS Plant‑Tech remained the employer and that the payroll companies provided payroll administration only. Consequently VAT charged on amounts representing wages and employers' NIC was not deductible input tax and the appeal was dismissed.

Brants Bridge Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1406 (TC) 9 September 2026 Brants Bridge Ltd and Braccans appealed HMRC’s refusal under regulation 9(5) CIS after HMRC assessed large under-deductions. The sole issue was whether the appellants took reasonable care to comply with the CIS; the Tribunal found they did not. The Tribunal held that delegating CIS matters to an untested, non‑professional internal "Team" and failing to obtain written advice or to resolve an obvious VAT/CIS tension was unreasonable and dismissed the appeals.

Katarina Poznic v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1298 (TC) 9 September 2026 This appeal concerned whether 100 B shares sold by Ms Poznic carried at least 5% of StudioAnyo Architects Ltd's voting rights for the two years before disposal so as to qualify for Business Asset Disposal Relief. Companies House and the company statutory records consistently recorded the B shares as having no voting rights, and the appellant produced no minutes, resolutions or rectification of the register to rebut those entries. The First-tier Tribunal found the statutory records unrebutted, held the B shares did not confer voting rights exercisable at general meetings, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the closure notice and additional CGT of £46,260.

Mountrail Company Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1296 (TC) 9 September 2026 This case concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal should grant permission for late appeals by Mountrail Company Holdings Ltd against assorted ATED-related penalties and an alleged refusal of ATED relief. The Tribunal allowed appeals against eight late filing penalties (2013/14–2016/17) and three late payment penalties (2015/16 and 2016/17) but refused permission for a late appeal against certain 2014/15 late payment penalties and refused permission to appeal an asserted refusal of ATED relief because no refusal decision had been communicated. The Tribunal directed HMRC to correct credits and interest where payments had been affected.

Ashfaq Rahman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1294 (TC) 4 September 2026 This appeal concerned follower notices (FN) and FA 2014 penalties issued to Mr Rahman after he entered Montpelier-promoted Isle of Man trust/partnership arrangements. The Tribunal found that the prior FTT decision in Huitson was a relevant judicial ruling for his materially identical arrangements, that Mr Rahman bore the legal burden of proving that the specified judicial ruling was not relevant, and that it was reasonable for him not to take corrective action by the stated deadline given his reliance on Montpelier; accordingly the appeal against the FN penalties was allowed, with corrective action treated as taken on 22 April 2020.

Goldmund Byrne v The Commissioners For HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1376 (TC) 3 September 2026 Goldmund Byrne applied for permission to lodge late appeals against multiple HMRC penalties and interest for tax years 2015–16 to 2019–20. The Tribunal struck out parts of the appeal (Grounds 2 and 4 and related complaints) for lack of jurisdiction and, applying the three-stage Martland approach, found the delays were substantial, GB’s reasons (including later-diagnosed ADHD/autism and limited medical evidence) did not constitute a continuing reasonable excuse, and refused permission for the late appeals.

Jody Scheckter v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1280 (TC) 3 September 2026 This appeal concerned whether sideways loss relief should be denied for losses in Laverstoke Park Produce LLP (LLP) under ITA ss.66–67, arising from its integrated business with Laverstoke Abattoirs Ltd (the Company). The Tribunal found the LLP carried on a single trade of farming, and that the LLP and the Company together formed a larger trading undertaking, but the farming trade was not ancillary to that undertaking and the LLP’s trade (viewed alone) was not carried on on a commercial basis, so ss.67(2) and 66(2)(a) applied and the appeal was dismissed.

John Lowry v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1279 (TC) 3 September 2026 This appeal challenged HMRC closure notices assessing large sums described as interest-free "loans" under the K2 Scheme as taxable. The tribunal found the payments were, in economic and commercial substance, remuneration and therefore "earnings" under s.62 ITEPA, and alternatively were caught by Part 7A; the appeal was dismissed and the closure notices upheld.

Raza Miah v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1278 (TC) 3 September 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for tax years 2005/06–2013/14 and related penalties, based largely on large unexplained bank lodgements which the appellant failed to substantiate. The First-tier Tribunal held the assessments were competently made, within the extended 20-year time limit because the appellant’s conduct was deliberate, and that HMRC’s inferences and best‑judgement figures were fair; the varied assessments totalling £415,942.10 and penalties totalling £214,980.18 were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Apricot Umbrella Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1254 (TC) 28 August 2026 Apricot Umbrella Ltd appealed HMRC VAT assessments totalling £405,422; HMRC applied to strike out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) arguing it had no realistic prospect of success given inconsistent pleadings, voluminous unstructured disclosure and an email conceding earlier inaccuracies. The Tribunal refused the strike‑out, finding the appellant had identified a cognisable challenge on output and input tax even though its case was inconsistently pleaded and faces serious evidential difficulties, and ordered directions for a substantive hearing. The Tribunal held the March 2026 email undermined credibility but did not amount to abandonment or a concession that the assessments were correct.

L W Joinery and Flooring Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1436 (TC) 28 August 2026 This appeal concerned CJRS assessments for employee Lance Williams and whether his reference salary was £2,996 or £512 per month. The Company sought permission after the substantive hearing to file a supplementary note to clarify HMRC RTI records; the Tribunal refused that application under its case‑management power, concluding it had already understood the records, that the note would not address the principal evidential deficiencies, and that the Company had not discharged the burden of proof for the higher salary. The decision therefore denied the post‑hearing filing and left the substantive appeal outcome determined on the existing evidence.

Precision Fabrications Andover Ltd & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1255 (TC) 28 August 2026 This appeal challenged HMRC Notices of Requirement (NORs) for security for PAYE and NICs issued 13 June 2025. The Tribunal held HMRC's decision that security was necessary was one reasonably open to it on the date of the NORs and confirmed the NORs, but exercised its power to extend the compliance date, setting a 60‑day period for provision of security. The appeal was therefore dismissed in substance while the compliance date was varied.

Colin Sagar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1247 (TC) 27 August 2026 This judgment concerns Mr Colin Sagar's applications for costs in two related Tribunal appeals after HMRC withdrew the contested decisions. The Tribunal found HMRC acted unreasonably in defending the Input Tax Appeal by failing to identify and evaluate documents it already held and awarded standard-basis costs to Mr Sagar (quantum reserved). The Tribunal did not find unreasonable conduct in the Penalties Appeal, dismissed that costs claim, and refused indemnity and wasted costs orders.

Luxurico Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1252 (TC) 27 August 2026 Luxurico Ltd (trading as Platinum Executive Travel) appealed HMRC's refusal to allow recovery of input VAT on a hypercar acquired in November 2020. The Tribunal held the relevant question is the taxpayer's objectively ascertainable primary intention at acquisition and found, on the contemporaneous evidence (business model, pre-acquisition commercial interest, insurance for hire and marketing), that Luxurico intended the vehicle primarily for hire; the appeal was allowed.

Pertemps Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1253 (TC) 27 August 2026 Pertemps appealed two late-VAT penalties after failing to pay a balancing VAT payment due 30 November 2024; the Tribunal found no reasonable excuse and upheld penalties of £115,741.02 and £830.03. HMRC had not shown it had considered “special circumstances” under paragraph 13 Schedule 26 FA 2021, giving the Tribunal jurisdiction to consider reduction, but the Tribunal declined to reduce the penalties on its own assessment. The Tribunal attributed the failure to insufficient funds arising from Pertemps’ commercial choices and omissions in managing working capital.

Tomi’s Restaurant Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1256 (TC) 27 August 2026 Tomi’s Restaurant Ltd and Mr Odiase sought permission to bring out-of-time appeals against HMRC discovery assessments totalling £481,399.04 and penalty notices totalling £313,547.37 (with a personal liability notice for Mr Odiase). The Tribunal found delays of over 13 months and over 9 months to be serious, concluded no good reason was shown for missing statutory appeal deadlines, and refused permission to notify the appeals out of time. The decision records rights to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Grand Smile Design Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1248 (TC) 26 August 2026 This appeal concerned whether transactions in March–April 2019 (a share “sale” and related payments) repaid Dr Keppel’s quasi‑loans for the purposes of schedule 11 so that they were not taxable employment income at 5 April 2019. The FTT held the arrangements were a pre‑ordained, circular composite device that did not constitute a genuine repayment “in money” of £324,480 and treated the £38,358.24 as a scheme fee, or alternatively disregarded the payments under para 12 as connected with tax avoidance; the disputed balance of £386,838.24 remained outstanding and taxable. The appeal was dismissed.

Jessbir Kaur v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1277 (TC) 26 August 2026 This case concerns a discovery assessment by HMRC for 2020/21 CGT after a London property held in legal title by Mrs Jessbir Kaur's son was sold on 30 July 2020. The Tribunal found Mrs Kaur was "absolutely entitled as against the trustee" (so the disposal is treated as hers), upheld the validity of HMRC's s29 TMA discovery assessment, but directed correction of the assessment because it used an overstated disposal figure and allowed deduction of certain legal costs if evidenced. The Tribunal did not finally determine carelessness for penalty purposes.

Victoria Oil & Gas plc v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1246 (TC) 26 August 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC best-judgment VAT assessments of £884,049 against Victoria Oil & Gas plc (VOG) for 2019–2022 and whether those assessments were properly made and whether disputed input VAT was directly and immediately linked to taxable supplies to Gaz du Cameroun (GdC). The Tribunal held HMRC acted to the best of its judgment and allowed recovery of input VAT on costs recharged or directly attributable to GdC (including certain litigation/dispute costs) but disallowed recovery for Therium-funded Kermerkol items and general head office and corporate legal costs. VOG was not a wholly taxable business and therefore not entitled to recover all input VAT; the appeal was allowed in part.

James Hall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1228 (TC) 24 August 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application to suspend the First-tier Tribunal's February 2026 Directions in proceedings brought by James Hall, pending HMRC's appeal to the Upper Tribunal against a January 2026 FTT decision. The FTT concluded the UT's forthcoming decision is likely to be materially relevant to jurisdiction, burden of proof and scope of grounds, and accordingly granted HMRC's application to suspend the directions to avoid unfair procedural advantage and wasted costs. Directions suspending the February 2026 Directions will be circulated.

JST (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1226 (TC) 21 August 2026 JST (UK) Ltd applied for permission to appeal out of time against a 25 October 2017 closure notice denying a £1,425,000 deduction and increasing corporation tax by £342,000. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Denton/Martland approach, found an approximately eight-month delay was serious, that JST’s focus on concurrent restitution litigation and reliance on its advisers (BDO) did not provide a good reason for the delay, and refused permission to appeal out of time.

Mustafa Barak t/a Moulin Rouge Fish and Chips v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1224 (TC) 21 August 2026 This tax appeal concerned four Eat Out to Help Out Scheme (EOHOS) claims of £19,500 and an HMRC assessment recovering that sum. The Tribunal held the assessment was valid (formalities met and Officer Moss satisfied both subjective belief and objective reasonableness requirements) and dismissed the appeal because the appellant failed to prove, with required records, by how much the assessment was excessive. The assessment therefore stood (with only unspecified, minor agreed adjustments).

Paul McGuire v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1225 (TC) 21 August 2026 Mr Paul McGuire sought repayment under the DIY Housebuilders VAT scheme but submitted his claim far later than Regulation 201's deadline; he relied on exceptional personal circumstances for the delay. HMRC applied to strike out the appeal and the First-tier Tribunal held it had no power to extend or waive the Regulation 201 time limit and that the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal granted HMRC's strike-out application under Rule 8(3)(c). Permission to appeal may be sought under Rule 39 within 56 days.

Richard Donald Baines Isaac v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1227 (TC) 21 August 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application for a costs order after the Appellant withdrew a late-appeal application shortly before the hearing, and alternatively a wasted costs order against the Appellant's representatives, Morr & Co. The Tribunal held HMRC had not proven the Appellant acted unreasonably in bringing or conducting the proceedings, nor that Morr & Co acted improperly, unreasonably or negligently, and therefore refused both the costs and wasted costs applications. The Tribunal accepted financial and personal pressures contributed to the withdrawal and found the prior decision (Northwood) did not make success impossible or render the present case materially indistinguishable.

David Anderson & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1229 (TC) 20 August 2026 This appeal concerned discovery assessments and penalties after Mr and Mrs Anderson, who sold four veterinary practices to a company they wholly owned between 2010 and 2012, failed to declare capital gains and Mr Anderson failed to declare rental income. The Tribunal found HMRC had validly discovered tax insufficiencies, that the appellants gave no evidence to displace the assessments, and that the omissions were deliberate (with fraud found for earlier years), so the discovery assessments and penalties were upheld and the appeals dismissed (one closure-notice penalty element having been withdrawn earlier).

Shahid Hussain v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1223 (TC) 20 August 2026 This First-tier Tribunal allowed Mr Shahid Hussain's appeal against HMRC's VAT registration, assessments and penalties for the period 6 April 2013 to 31 August 2017, finding the evidence did not reliably support HMRC's methodology. The Tribunal concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that the takeaway's turnover did not exceed the VAT registration threshold and set aside the assessments and penalties.

Sanjaykumar Vadera v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1206 (TC) 19 August 2026 This appeal concerns an application by Mr Vadera to reinstate an appeal that had been automatically struck out for non‑compliance with Tribunal directions and an unless order after his representative Cornerstone went into administration. The Tribunal found Mr Vadera wished to pursue the appeal and acted promptly once informed, but had failed to put in place reasonable arrangements to monitor correspondence or replace his representative, and that the series of failures amounted to a serious breach. Applying the three‑stage Denton/Martland approach, the Tribunal concluded that, notwithstanding prejudice to Mr Vadera, reinstatement would not be fair or proportionate and refused the application.

Aqsa Khan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1205 (TC) 18 August 2026 This appeal challenged a Personal Liability Notice making the sole director (the appellant) personally liable for a £1,492,869 Schedule 24 penalty tied to VAT assessments on Best Buy Scot Ltd for alleged metal trading. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's "hijacking" defence, preferred contemporaneous documentary evidence over her oral account, found the company had made deliberate inaccuracies, and confirmed the PLN, dismissing the appeal.

Alan Pontin & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1166 (TC) 13 August 2026 This case concerned whether Associated Properties UK Limited (APUK) was a "trading company" in the period 22 April 2015–22 April 2016 so that Highland Holdings Limited (HHL) qualified as the holding company of a trading group for entrepreneurs' relief. The Tribunal applied a holistic multifactorial test and concluded APUK’s activities were trading‑related and did not include to a substantial extent non‑trading activities. The appeals were allowed and HHL was held to be the holding company of a trading group.

Parwinder Singh Gill v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1164 (TC) 13 August 2026 This appeal concerned a Personal Liability Notice issued to Mr Parwinder Singh Gill holding him personally liable for deliberate VAT inaccuracies in PSGCL's returns for 01/15–06/19. The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Gill acted deliberately to mislead HMRC about the VAT due, drew an adverse inference from his failure to call the company accountant, and upheld the PLN of £1,781,474.60. The appeal was dismissed.

Richard Alderson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1167 (TC) 13 August 2026 Mr Alderson appealed HMRC CJRS assessments and was automatically struck out for failing to comply with an unless order. He applied to reinstate; the Tribunal applied the three‑stage test (seriousness of breach; reasons for breach; overall balance), found the breaches serious and the reasons (junk‑mail, health) not fully proven, but concluded the overall balance favoured reinstatement. The Tribunal allowed reinstatement and made consequential case‑management directions.

Robin Houldsworth v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1165 (TC) 13 August 2026 Mr Houldsworth appealed HMRC’s closure notice on residence grounds and sought a stay of his Tax Appeal pending an out-of-time judicial review challenging HMRC’s refusal to apply IR20. The Tribunal refused the stay, holding that where substantial disputed facts are central to both proceedings the specialist tax Tribunal should ordinarily determine them first. The judicial‑review permission decision did not, by itself, require a stay and the Tax Appeal will proceed before the Judicial Review.

Michael King v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1163 (TC) 12 August 2026 This appeal concerned whether the Q7000 vessel on which Mr King worked was an "offshore installation" or a "ship" for ITEPA/ITA purposes and whether its use entitled him to Seafarers' Earnings Deduction (SED). The Tribunal found the Q7000 to be a structure that was stationed in waters when latched to wells but held that its actual activity was decommissioning and permanent well abandonment, not "exploiting mineral resources by means of a well." Because the vessel was not put to the relevant use in section 1001(3), it was not an offshore installation and Mr King’s SED was allowed. HMRC’s closure notices were overturned.

Shahada Rahman Joli v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1204 (TC) 12 August 2026 This appeal concerns an application for permission to bring a 777‑day late appeal against a Schedule 24 paragraph 19 personal liability notice issued by HMRC. The Tribunal found the Appellant had a good reason for delay up to at least 14 February 2023 because of serious health problems and, balancing all circumstances (including an unclear HMRC letter and the procedural history), allowed the late appeal. The Tribunal also held it was lawful to proceed with the hearing in the Appellant’s absence and to enforce case‑management directions.

247 Jobline Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1146 (TC) 6 August 2026 This case concerns applications to reinstate three struck-out VAT appeals and a permission request for a late appeal arising from HMRC’s 2021–22 investigation of related companies. The Tribunal found serious breaches of directions and lengthy unexplained delay, rejected the Second Appellant’s claim that he was impersonated by his brother, and refused all reinstatement and late-appeal applications. The Tribunal did not treat the substantive merits as determinative, finding them not so weak as to justify summary dismissal but also not weighing in favour of reinstatement.

Tanglewood Care Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1137 (TC) 6 August 2026 Tanglewood appealed HMRC's Closure Notice disallowing an enhanced R&D claim of £880,286 for measures taken to manage Covid-19 in its care homes. The Tribunal found the activities formed a coordinated project but were operational/managerial responses using existing infection-control knowledge rather than efforts to achieve an advance in overall science or technology directed at resolving scientific or technological uncertainty. The appeal was dismissed.

Visu Tech Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1136 (TC) 6 August 2026 Visu Tech Ltd sought permission to bring a 702‑day late appeal against three HMRC assessments dated 24 February 2023 totalling £36,035.84 relating to alleged overclaimed CJRS payments. The First-tier Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland approach, found the delay significant, rejected the appellant’s inconsistent and unsupported explanations, and concluded there was no good reason to grant permission. The application for permission to bring a late appeal was dismissed.

Andrew Burridge v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1127 (TC) 5 August 2026 This appeal concerned a civil evasion penalty imposed on Mr Burridge after Border Force seized 35.35kg of hand rolling tobacco he brought into the UK. The Tribunal found HMRC proved on the balance of probabilities that he subjectively knew he exceeded his allowance and intended not to declare the tobacco, and that his conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards, but allowed the appeal in part by reducing the penalty for limited disclosure and cooperation. HMRC must recalculate the penalty with two 15% reductions; financial hardship was not considered.

Oakwood Great Oak Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1138 (TC) 5 August 2026 This appeal concerned whether Great Oak, acquired 29 November 2022, was "residential property" for Stamp Duty Land Tax purposes under s.116(1) FA 2003. Applying the multifactorial evaluative test in Mudan, the Tribunal found extensive deterioration, widespread licensable asbestos contamination and the need for intrusive specialist remediation such that, cumulatively, the property had ceased to possess the characteristics and identity of a dwelling at the effective date. The appeal was allowed.

Richard Bates v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1135 (TC) 5 August 2026 This appeal concerned a discovery assessment of £20,716.40 for 2010–11 arising from Mr Bates' use of the Darwinpay contractor loan scheme. The tribunal found the £69,029.78 paid by the Darwinpay Trust were, in substance, unconditional payments of remuneration (earnings) funded from client fees and not genuine loans, and that HMRC made a valid discovery on 10 September 2013 and issued a timely discovery assessment on 18 October 2013. Mr Bates' challenges that he was overcharged or would suffer double taxation were not made out or fell outside the tribunal's jurisdiction. The appeal was dismissed.

Tapi Carpets Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1128 (TC) 5 August 2026 Tapi sold flooring and provided a paid "fitting arrangement" service matching customers with vetted independent fitters; HMRC assessed Tapi for VAT on fitters' fees on the basis Tapi was the supplier. The First-tier Tribunal found the written terms and surrounding conduct showed fitters contracted with and supplied the fitting services to customers and that Tapi acted as a disclosed agent for an arrangement fee. The tribunal allowed Tapi's appeal and rejected HMRC's assessments charging Tapi VAT on the fitters' fees; Tapi remains liable for VAT on its arrangement/delivery & care fees.

Jerzy Wesolowski v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1110 (TC) 31 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether the Appellant company was liable under regulation 13 HMDP for excise duty on 1,333.5 kg of hand rolling tobacco seized from its vehicle at Dover on 3 April 2017. The Tribunal found that, although physical possession at the duty point was with the driver, the company had de facto and/or legal control of the goods (through its employee actions, ownership/use of the vehicle, ferry/payment arrangements and use of the company CMR stamp) and therefore was “holding” the goods and was also “making the delivery” under reg 13. The appeal was dismissed and the company was held liable for the duty of £279,728.00.

Mark Gadsden v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1112 (TC) 31 July 2026 The appellant, Mark Gadsden, sought costs under Rule 10(1)(b) after winning a substantive appeal that his failure to pay Class 2 NICs was through ignorance or error. He alleged HMRC acted unreasonably in preparing and presenting witness evidence (notably Ms Crawford) and in continuing to defend the appeal. The Tribunal found significant evidential weaknesses in HMRC’s case but no dishonesty, bad faith or deliberate misleading, and held those weaknesses did not meet the high threshold of unreasonable conduct under Rule 10(1)(b). The costs application was refused.

Property 118 Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1111 (TC) 31 July 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC’s allocation of SRNs under DOTAS for two incorporation-related arrangements (SIS and CAR). The tribunal found neither arrangement met the notified descriptions relied on by HMRC (description 5 for SIS and CAR; descriptions 3 and 9 for CAR) and cancelled the SRN allocations. The tribunal treated the arrangements as commercially motivated and concluded the statutory tests (including the “informed observer”, standardisation, main-purpose and “but for” tests) were not satisfied. HMRC’s DOTAS guidance was not treated as determinative of the legal meaning of the statutory tests.

Cogefin (Bermuda) Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1108 (TC) 30 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether Cogefin (Bermuda) Limited was UK resident because its central management and control was exercised in the UK by Mr Ciardi, the validity and timeliness of HMRC discovery assessments following an LDF disclosure, penalty liability for failure to notify, and whether Mr Ciardi was personally liable under a Personal Liability Notice. The Tribunal found that Mr Ciardi, acting from the UK, directed Cogefin’s strategic decisions and that the company was UK resident for the periods under appeal; HMRC’s discovery assessments were validly raised in time. Penalty findings were reduced because failures were at least careless rather than deliberate, and the PLN against Mr Ciardi was set aside; quantum was reserved.

Gagajoo Gardens & Landscapes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1100 (TC) 29 July 2026 This case concerns Gagajoo Gardens & Landscapes Ltd’s appeals against VAT default surcharges and Schedule 24/26 penalties; most appeals were substantially late and the company relied on medical, personal and cashflow reasons. The Tribunal refused permission for the late appeals, found the appellant had not proved a reasonable excuse for the payment defaults, and upheld HMRC’s penalties (save for one penalty removed on review). The appellant’s overall appeal was dismissed.

Westbury Collections Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1107 (TC) 29 July 2026 Westbury Collections Ltd appealed HMRC default VAT surcharges totalling £19,395.60 arising from multiple late VAT returns/payments. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC’s electronic posting records established proper service of the liability and surcharge notices, rejected the company’s claimed reasonable excuse (the director had knowingly retained VAT as working capital and deprioritised compliance), and held the surcharges were not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

Dr John Reynolds v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1099 (TC) 28 July 2026 Dr Reynolds sought reinstatement of a tax appeal he had withdrawn; Judge A reinstated it without HMRC having been given notice, and Judge B later set that decision aside and directed a hearing. The First-tier Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to reconsider but that s 54 of the Tax Management Act (TMA) created a deemed agreement after the statutory 30-day period, so the Tribunal had no power to allow reinstatement; the application was refused. The decision records rights to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Perenco UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1096 (TC) 28 July 2026 Perenco UK Ltd appealed HMRC closure notices denying part of its 2011 first‑year capital allowances for Field Facilities sold shortly after acquisition. The FTT found PUK had incurred qualifying expenditure and obtained legal and equitable ownership on completion (14 Dec 2011), so s.11(4) and s.45F were satisfied and s.45G did not deny first‑year treatment; HMRC's contention that s.197 should override the s.198 election failed because retaining allowances was not a main purpose of the scheme. The appeal was allowed and the parties were directed to agree the correct foreign‑exchange basis.

A & A Contractors Midlands Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1093 (TC) 27 July 2026 A&A Contractors Midlands Ltd and its director KS appealed HMRC decisions denying input VAT, issuing a VAT assessment and penalties, and deregistering the company. The Tribunal found supplier transactions were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion but that A&A did not know and should not have known of that connection until 24 June 2020 (two days after a tax‑loss/VETO notice dated 22 June 2020), so denial of input tax, the assessment and penalties were limited to transactions after that date; the deregistration was upheld. Adjustments to KS’s personal liability mirrored the reduced period.

iHeat.me Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1089 (TC) 23 July 2026 iHeat.me Ltd appealed a closure notice and brought multiple procedural applications alleging HMRC had behaved unreasonably (seeking costs, strike‑out/barring, summary determination and disclosure limitations) after settlement discussions. The Tribunal found HMRC's conduct, including late service of the statement of case and documents, was capable of reasonable explanation in context (including without‑prejudice settlement steps), refused all of the appellant's applications, and directed the appeal to proceed to a substantive hearing.

Karman Ali v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1086 (TC) 22 July 2026 This appeal concerned a civil evasion penalty (CEP) imposed after the Appellant arrived from Jordan carrying 86,400 non-UK duty paid cigarettes and was found to have used the Green Channel without declaring them. The Tribunal preferred Border Force evidence over the Appellant's account, applied the Ivey test for dishonesty, found on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant knowingly engaged in conduct to evade duty and that his conduct was dishonest, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the £27,024 penalty with the reductions already applied.

Scott Knight v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1087 (TC) 22 July 2026 This appeal concerns a 5 April 2024 closure notice assessing £194,272.40 CGT for 2020/21 after a £986,412.60 capital distribution from Dirty Harry's liquidation was omitted from Mr Knight's return. HMRC sought to strike out parts of the appeal; the Tribunal refused to strike out the challenge to entitlement to Business Asset Disposal Relief (BADR) but struck out reliance on the brother's BADR and the pleaded duplication with a 2017/18 closure notice, deferring determination of quantum to the substantive hearing. Directions were given for further particulars on the BADR issue and for HMRC to file or amend their statement of case.

B&M Retail Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1062 (TC) 16 July 2026 B&M Retail appealed a £1,172,340.94 penalty under paragraph 4 of Schedule 41 to the Finance Act 2008 for acquiring excise goods where duty could not be shown to have been paid. The sole issue was whether B&M had a "reasonable excuse" under paragraph 20; the Tribunal found that B&M's structured, consistently applied due diligence and reliance on supplier assurances as part of that framework amounted to a reasonable excuse and that it persisted until B&M ceased trading with the intermediary (Ruby) after HMRC's November 2011 intervention. The appeal was allowed and the penalty vacated.

David Morgan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1063 (TC) 16 July 2026 This case concerns an application by David Morgan to reinstate an appeal that had been automatically struck out for failure to comply with Tribunal directions and an "unless" order. The Tribunal applied the Denton/Martland three-stage approach, concluded the breach was serious and occurred against a background of repeated non-compliance, and found the medical evidence and explanations insufficient to justify reinstatement. The application was refused and the appeal remains struck out.

Harlequin Brickwork Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1038 (TC) 10 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether input VAT denied by HMRC under s.69C/VATA was lost as a result of fraud (Kittel condition A) and whether the appellants were connected to that fraud (condition B). HMRC’s very late application to amend its Statement of Case to expand fraud allegations was largely refused. On the pleaded and proven evidence HMRC did not prove that the VAT loss was occasioned by fraud, so the appeals on the substantive VAT denial succeed and the related s.69C penalties fall away.

Peter Reed v The Commissioners For HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1037 (TC) 10 July 2026 Mr Peter Reed appealed a discovery assessment and subsequent review by HMRC concerning a £59,280 payment received after transferring funds into a QROPS. The First-tier Tribunal held the discovery assessment dated 20 March 2019 was valid and that the £59,280 was an unauthorised payment giving rise to an unauthorised payments charge of £23,712 (40%). However, the Tribunal found the original discovery assessment did not objectively assess or notify liability to the separate unauthorised payments surcharge and therefore the review could not lawfully introduce that surcharge; the review decision upholding the surcharge was set aside. The appeal was allowed in part: the charge remains payable but the surcharge is overturned.

Eillish Kwai v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1033 (TC) 9 July 2026 This appeal concerns HMRC discovery assessments (2018/19–2022/23) and a closure notice (2023/24) reducing the Appellant’s claimed car travel expenses. The Tribunal held the enquiry, discovery assessments and closure notice were valid, found the Appellant acted carelessly by failing to keep contemporaneous records and making inconsistent large claims, treated London (within the M25) as her permanent workplace under an area‑based test so Colchester–London travel was ordinary commuting and not deductible, and upheld HMRC’s revised mileage figures; the appeal was dismissed and additional tax of £25,844.45 stood.

Pankaj Kothari v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1035 (TC) 9 July 2026 Mr Kothari appealed a Schedule 56 late payment penalty of £12,047 arising from unpaid CGT for 2021/22 after a closure notice; the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalty. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse or special circumstances: Mr Kothari did not prove on the balance of probabilities that lack of liquid funds was due to events outside his control or that he took timely, effective steps to raise funds. HMRC’s refusal to reduce the penalty was found not to be flawed.

Storm Environmental Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1036 (TC) 9 July 2026 Storm Environmental Ltd sought permission to notify a late appeal against a November 2023 C18 customs duty and import VAT demand; the appeal was lodged ten months late. The First-tier Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to decide the late-appeal application before any hardship application, found the delay was largely unexplained (about 7.5 of 10 months without good reason), and refused permission to admit the late appeal, dismissing the late-appeal application; no decision was required on hardship.

Jonathan Gwynne v The Commissioners For HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1030 (TC) 8 July 2026 This case concerns an application to reinstate a VAT personal liability appeal that was automatically struck out for breach of case management directions, including an unless order. The FTT found the breaches serious and significant, attributed the agent’s failings to the appellant, and held the explanations (medical evidence, alleged ambiguity in HMRC's response, and agent failings) insufficient to justify reinstatement. The reinstatement application was refused.

RH Independent Healthcare Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1034 (TC) 8 July 2026 This case concerns RH Independent Healthcare Ltd's application for permission to notify an appeal out of time after HMRC sent review correspondence including a Review Conclusion Letter (RCL). The Tribunal found HMRC proved the relevant letters were posted and that the RCL, despite a possible form defect, operated as the deemed conclusion of the review under s.114 TMA, so the appellant's Notice of Appeal was about eight months late. The appellant failed to show a good reason for the delay and permission to appeal out of time was refused.

Daniel Monaghan v The Commissioners For HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1029 (TC) 7 July 2026 This appeal concerned late-filing penalties for the 2019/20 self-assessment. The Tribunal allowed admission of the out-of-time appeal and found HMRC had not proved service of a notice requiring a return under s.8 TMA, so Schedule 55 penalties could not be sustained and were cancelled.

Grant Anderson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1007 (TC) 3 July 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for 2008–09 and 2009–10 and a closure notice for 2010–11 arising from loans paid via an AML offshore EBT to Mr Anderson. The Tribunal held the payments were employment income, upheld HMRC’s discoveries and the assessments and closure notice, rejected Mr Anderson’s procedural, delay and estoppel arguments, and dismissed the appeal. Permission to appeal must be sought within 56 days.

Vasile Cerchez v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1006 (TC) 3 July 2026 This case concerns two seizures of beer in June and July 2016 where Mr Cerchez was found in physical possession at the first UK excise duty point; HMRC assessed excise duty and imposed Schedule 41 penalties. The Tribunal held Mr Cerchez was the holder for excise duty purposes so the duty assessments stand, but found HMRC did not prove deliberate conduct and that Mr Cerchez’s extreme hardship caused by enforcement amounted to special circumstances. Exercising its substitution power, the Tribunal reduced both Schedule 41 penalties to nil.

Christopher Kippax v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 994 (TC) 2 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether HMRC's 11 January 2023 letter was a valid final closure notice and whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction because a valid notice of appeal had been given to HMRC. The Tribunal held the closure notice was valid but that no valid notice of appeal was given to HMRC: one letter (13 Feb 2023) did not objectively indicate an intention to appeal, and another (25 Feb 2023) though properly worded was not proved to have been received by HMRC; accordingly the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and struck the appeal out.

John McIlhone v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 995 (TC) 2 July 2026 This appeal concerned whether assets of an Employee Benefit Trust created in 2007 constituted "relevant property" at the ten‑year anniversary for IHT periodic charge purposes. The Tribunal held the trust had been split into two discrete sub‑trusts (McIlhone and Walsh), each earmarked to benefit a named individual, so they did not meet the employee‑trust conditions and were subject to the periodic charge. The Determination was varied so that liability was assessed only on the McIlhone Sub‑Trust (£4,000,050) rather than the full £8m; the appeal otherwise failed on the single permitted ground.

Matthew Lambourne & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 997 (TC) 2 July 2026 This case concerned whether a self-contained metal "Unit" on purchased land counted as a dwelling for Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) for SDLT. The Tribunal held the Unit was a chattel, not part of the land, so MDR was unavailable, but directed that the SDLT chargeable consideration be reduced to exclude the Unit's value; the Tribunal would have found the Unit suitable as a single dwelling only as an obiter. HMRC was permitted to advance the chattel/land argument in the litigation and the closure notice was held sufficiently broad.

Mukarram Sattar & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1005 (TC) 2 July 2026 HMRC applied under Rule 5(3)(b) to have four related appeals case managed and heard together. The Tribunal refused to join the pension appeal to the others because its subject-matter was distinct and joining risked unfair prejudice, but ordered the income tax appeal to be case managed and heard together with the two company appeals due to substantial overlap of evidence and issues. Directions were given for parties to agree further procedural steps within 28 days.

Olukemi Dada v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 993 (TC) 2 July 2026 This appeal concerned a discovery assessment by HMRC for the year to 5 April 2010 charging tax on £36,301 paid by the appellant’s employer, Aston Management Limited (AML), to an Employee Benefit Trust (EBT) and loaned to the appellant. The Tribunal found the appellant was employed by AML, held that the EBT payments (then loaned to the appellant) amounted to remuneration/earnings taxable as employment income, and upheld the discovery assessment as valid and timely. The appellant’s good faith participation and lack of practical control over the scheme did not alter liability. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment for £7,534.40 was upheld.

Plat UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 999 (TC) 2 July 2026 Plat UK Ltd appealed HMRC assessments of £470,894 for input VAT claimed in periods 11/20–08/23. The Tribunal found Plat did not hold valid VAT invoices when it made the returns because the later-supplied Harrods/Selfridges documents lacked a sufficient description of goods and most invoices were not made out to Plat. HMRC reasonably refused to exercise its regulation 29(2) discretion to accept alternative evidence, and the appeal was dismissed. Permission to apply for appeal was noted.

Scott Waterhouse v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 996 (TC) 2 July 2026 This case concerns Mr Scott Waterhouse’s application for permission to bring a very late appeal (1,306 days late) against HMRC’s disallowance of deductions for payments to his wife. The Tribunal found there was a serious unexplained delay, that reliance on the appellant’s agent did not excuse it, and that the substantive appeal did not have obvious strong merit. Permission to appeal out of time was refused and the late appeal dismissed.

Sovereign Corporate Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC (Costs) [2026] UKFTT 1004 (TC) 2 July 2026 This is a First-tier Tribunal costs decision after Sovereign Corporate Ltd's appeal was dismissed following the appellant's non-attendance at the final hearing. The Tribunal held the appellant's disengagement and pursuit of an appeal based on a transparently wrong factual point amounted to unreasonable conduct under Rule 10(1)(b) and ordered Sovereign Corporate Ltd to pay HMRC's costs. The Tribunal found F4Tax had acted as the appellant's representative but HMRC had not identified specific wasted costs attributable to F4Tax, so no wasted-costs order was made against the firm. HMRC's costs were summarily assessed at £13,000, payable by Sovereign Corporate Ltd within 28 days.

William J Cook v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 998 (TC) 2 July 2026 This case concerns William J Cook’s application for permission to bring late appeals against HMRC assessments and penalties for 2009–10 to 2019–20 arising from a COP9 investigation. Applying the established three-stage Martland/Denton approach, the Tribunal found the nearly two-year delays were serious, the Appellant did not establish a good reason for the delay (adviser failings were attributed to him), and refused permission to appeal out of time. HMRC’s supplementary witness evidence was admitted (with one email excluded). The Tribunal allowed the parties opportunity to seek permission to appeal its decision.

Dhalomal Kishore (t/a Movil 2000) V The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 987 (TC) 1 July 2026 This appeal concerned an application for permission to bring a substantially late appeal against HMRC misdeclaration VAT penalties dated 3 August 2017 (periods 03/06 and 06/06, the latter later reduced by letter of 8 December 2022). The First-tier Tribunal applied the Martland three-stage approach, found the delay serious and unjustified, held the December 2022 letter did not create a new appealable decision restarting the time limit, and refused permission to admit the late appeal.

Compound Photonics Group Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 985 (TC) 30 June 2026 This appeal concerned whether Compound Photonics Group Limited carried on economic activity for VAT purposes after selling its UK operating business in May 2017 and whether a later January 2022 sale of retained IP ("Snap Sale") was economic activity. The Tribunal held that economic activity ceased at the May 2017 Disposal and there was no objectively evidenced intention to continue trading, but that the Snap Sale itself did constitute economic activity. The question whether the claimed input VAT has a direct and immediate link to the Snap Sale was left outstanding.

Cornelia Van-Der-Sluis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1459 (TC) 30 June 2026

Gordon McKenzie v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 986 (TC) 30 June 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC’s seizure of 6kg of hand rolling tobacco from Mr McKenzie, an excise duty assessment of £1,628 and a deliberate wrongdoing penalty of £569.80. The First-tier Tribunal upheld the duty assessment because Mr McKenzie did not challenge the seizure within the statutory period and the goods were therefore deemed forfeited, but it reduced the penalty after finding his conduct was not deliberate. The Tribunal treated intention for penalty purposes as a separate factual inquiry not resolved by the statutory deeming of forfeiture.

M-Sport Wheels Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 977 (TC) 30 June 2026 M‑Sport appealed HMRC’s refusal of R&D claims for 2020 and 2021 but encountered prolonged witness‑evidence problems, sought and was refused extensions, and then withdrew the appeal shortly before the hearing. HMRC applied for costs under Rule 10(1)(b) alleging unreasonable conduct; the Tribunal held HMRC had not proved the Appellant’s conduct fell outside the range of reasonable conduct and refused the costs application.

The Recruitment Crowd (Yorkshire) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 975 (TC) 30 June 2026 HMRC issued an information notice to The Recruitment Crowd (Yorkshire) Ltd (RCYL) under Schedule 36 FA 2008 seeking documents and information relating to payroll and RTI variance. The First-tier Tribunal found the notice was in substance directed at the tax positions of third parties in RCYL's supply chain rather than RCYL's own tax position, and set the notice aside for failing to satisfy paragraph 1 and the conditions B/C of paragraph 21. The Tribunal also rejected HMRC's reliance on paragraph 29(2) to make items unappealable because HMRC did not identify specific statutory provisions showing the requested items were statutory records.

Next Generation Clubs Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 976 (TC) 29 June 2026 The Tribunal considered whether multi-facility leisure-club memberships (David Lloyd Clubs) fell within Group 16 of Schedule 7A (the TRR) as "rights of admission to ... similar cultural events and facilities." After detailed factual findings the Tribunal held the supplies were not similar to any specific item in Group 16 nor to the list as a whole, and that the memberships were rights of access (regular use) rather than rights of admission; the appeal was dismissed.

Timothy Welham v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 989 (TC) 29 June 2026 Mr Welham appealed to the First-tier Tribunal against HMRC penalties but the Tribunal struck the appeal out for want of jurisdiction because he had not given a valid notice of appeal to HMRC under s31A TMA before notifying the Tribunal. The Tribunal found the November 2023 and January 2024 letters were requests for remission/repayment, did not identify specific decisions or grounds of appeal, and therefore did not satisfy s31A or the s49D(1) precondition for Tribunal jurisdiction. The strike-out was made under Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 r.8(2).

Mohammad Farrokhshad v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 954 (TC) 24 June 2026 This appeal challenged follower‑notice (FN) penalties issued to Mr Farrokhshad for tax years 2004–05 to 2006–07. The Tribunal admitted a late appeal, found the FNs valid and issued in time, held that withdrawal from the scheme did not satisfy the statutory "corrective action" and that it was not reasonable not to take the prescribed steps, and confirmed HMRC's reduced penalty total of £33,349.49 (originally £42,446.90). The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Solar Power PV Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 952 (TC) 24 June 2026 This case concerned HMRC's application to strike out Solar Power PV Limited's claim for repayment of £28,697.38 on the ground that the First‑tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal characterised the claim as a collateral challenge to a final tax penalty and to enforcement/insolvency steps and held it had no power to entertain such standalone challenges, so the proceedings were struck out.

Winchester City Council v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 953 (TC) 24 June 2026 Winchester City Council brought a VAT repayment claim dated 27 May 2025 covering May 2021–March 2023 after an earlier administrative claim of 31 May 2023 had been rejected; HMRC treated the later claim as a repeat and rejected it as abusive. The First-tier Tribunal held the 27 May 2025 claim advanced a materially different legal basis (arguing the fees were outside the scope of VAT rather than merely exempt), was therefore a valid VATA 1994 claim, and was not an abuse of process, so the appeal was in time and allowed.

LFS Enterprises Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 930 (TC) 19 June 2026 LFS Enterprises, an RDCO-approved fuel reseller in Northern Ireland, appealed HMRC Additional Conditions imposing expanded record-keeping, weekly reporting and a duty to report suspicious sales. The Tribunal found the company’s record-keeping systemically deficient but held many specified data items reasonable and some (eg full postal name, vehicle make/model, routine VAT numbers, vague due-diligence detail) excessive, so allowed the appeal in part and directed HMRC to review and narrow the record-keeping conditions. The Tribunal upheld the weekly Information Requirement and the Suspicion Requirement.

Beritaz Care Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 912 (TC) 18 June 2026 Beritaz applied on 8 May 2025 for Robertson Nursing Home Ltd to join its VAT group with effect from 1 May 2021; HMRC did not refuse within 90 days and treated RNHL as a member from 8 May 2025 but later refused retrospective effect. The First-tier Tribunal held that because the grouping application was deemed granted from 8 May 2025, HMRC’s later refusal to backdate membership (an exercise of discretion under B(4)(b)) did not create an appealable refusal under s.83(1)(k) VATA, and struck the appeal out for want of jurisdiction.

Conor Maguire v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 929 (TC) 18 June 2026 Mr Maguire appealed a follower notice penalty issued by HMRC in relation to offshore arrangements marketed by Montpelier. The Tribunal found that, judged objectively up to the FN deadline of 4 May 2017, it was reasonable for Mr Maguire—who was not a tax specialist—to rely on Montpelier's advice and not to take corrective action, and it cancelled the penalty. The Tribunal also held that payment of disputed tax did not, by itself, amount to "counteraction" under section 210(3) to justify further reduction of the penalty.

Dr Robin Garai v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 920 (TC) 18 June 2026 Dr Robin Garai appealed an HMRC Schedule 36 information notice dated 15 December 2022 seeking documents about payments he received while employed by Canopaye Ltd. The First-tier Tribunal held the notice was valid but exercised its variation powers to narrow the scope and timeframe of the required documents and extended compliance to 45 days; the varied notice (Appendix 2) must be complied with. The tribunal found prima facie that most requested items were in Dr Garai’s possession or power and that he had not shown he had made a serious attempt to obtain them from his former employer.

Liam Henry v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 921 (TC) 18 June 2026 This appeal concerned whether a property at The Drive, Rickmansworth comprised two or more dwellings for SDLT multiple dwellings relief (MDR) purposes at completion. The Tribunal preferred the Marketing Floorplan over the Appellant’s competing floorplan, applied a multi‑factorial Fiander approach to the physical attributes at the effective date, and found the Property was a single dwelling. The appeal was dismissed and MDR was denied.

Mohammed Maasher v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 911 (TC) 18 June 2026 This is an appeal by Mr Maasher against an HMRC Closure Notice for 2020–21 disputing increased turnover and reduced expenses. The Tribunal held the Closure Notice complied with statutory requirements but allowed the appeal in part, accepting many of Mr Maasher’s expense claims (including subcontractor payments to his wife and daughter, travel/subsistence, a one‑third use‑of‑home apportionment, and certain property repairs) while disallowing charity donations and a medical payment. The Tribunal found HMRC’s case inconsistent in places and directed the parties to confirm quantum and penalty issues within 28 days.

Richard Ellison v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 913 (TC) 18 June 2026 This case concerns Mr Richard Ellison’s attempt to reinstate earlier 2017 appeals so as to challenge 2012–2015 income tax assessments and a separate late appeal against VAT surcharges. The Tribunal held the reinstatement application was over eight years late and, because HMRC did not object within 30 days when the 2017 withdrawal was recorded, TMA s.54(4) produced a deemed agreement/decision which precluded reinstatement; the income tax element of the appeal was struck out. The late-appeal application on VAT surcharges remains to be decided at a hearing.

L&Y Enterprise Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 910 (TC) 17 June 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC VAT assessments and penalties raised against L&Y Enterprise Ltd following a till intervention. The Tribunal found some assessments were out of time and those made in time were based on assumptions about till "open items" that were materially overstated; on the evidence LYE discharged the burden of showing no additional VAT was due and the careless-inaccuracy penalties were cancelled. The Tribunal admitted the late appeal/documents and made no determination on any repayment entitlement.

Lucky Voice Group Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 903 (TC) 16 June 2026 Lucky Voice appealed HMRC's rejection of its claim to apply the 5% temporary VAT rate to fees for private karaoke room hire. The First-tier Tribunal held the payments were for exclusive room hire and use (a package including facilities and equipment), not a "right of admission" to "similar cultural events and facilities" in Group 16 of Schedule 7A. The appeal was dismissed and the reduced rate refused.

Long Life Fencing & Decking Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 887 (TC) 15 June 2026 This appeal concerned a Schedule 26 VAT late payment penalty issued to Long Life Fencing & Decking Ltd for failure to pay VAT due by 7 November 2025; HMRC assessed a penalty of £420.52. The Tribunal found liability and that notification was given within the statutory time, and rejected the appellant’s para 12 reasonable excuse defence (director’s inexperience and lack of specific HMRC correspondence). The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

W.Byers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 886 (TC) 15 June 2026 W. Byers Ltd set up a Direct Debit, submitted its VAT return and received an unqualified on-screen HMRC confirmation stating "We will collect your payments automatically by Direct Debit", but HMRC did not collect the due payment on 7 November 2025. The Tribunal found it was reasonable for the company to rely on that specific HMRC representation, which amounted to a reasonable excuse and was remedied without unreasonable delay, and cancelled the 3% first late payment penalty of £4,848.54.

Virgin Atlantic Airways Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 890 (TC) 12 June 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application to stay two VAT appeals by Virgin pending the final determination of a related Avios appeal that raises very similar legal issues about whether VAT arises on issuance of loyalty points or on redemption. The Tribunal found very considerable similarity between the appeals, concluded the Avios decision would very likely materially assist resolution of Virgin's central issues, and ordered consolidation and a stay of Virgin's appeals behind Avios with directions stayed for 60 days after Avios is finally determined.

Sameer Khan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 884 (TC) 10 June 2026 This case concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear VAT appeals where the appellant had not filed the relevant VAT returns before lodging notices of appeal. The Tribunal held that section 83(1)(p)(i) VATA permits an appeal only in respect of periods for which a return has been made, so it lacked jurisdiction and struck out the appeals (the 04/20 assessment was separately struck out because it had been withdrawn). The Tribunal noted that filing the missing returns after the notice of appeal does not retrospectively validate the appeals; any challenge after filing would require permission to appeal late.

Timco Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 883 (TC) 10 June 2026 Timco Ltd appealed HMRC income tax assessments recovering Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments totalling initially £37,107.70; HMRC's review increased the assessments to £24,182.36. The Tribunal found the two employee-directors were variable-rate, accepted HMRC's RTI-based methodology and two reviewing adjustments (exclude pay after 19 March 2020 and treat May 2020 claim periods separately), and dismissed the appeal, confirming the varied assessments. The Tribunal exercised its power to increase the original assessments to the reviewed totals if required; no penalty was charged.

Vani Enterprises Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 885 (TC) 10 June 2026 Vani Enterprises appealed HMRC VAT and corporation tax assessments that arose from HMRC's s.73 VATA best-judgement VAT assessment (periods 02/16–11/17) and related para 41(1), sch 18 FA 1998 CT discovery assessments. The Tribunal found HMRC's VAT assessment was made to the best of their judgement using an appropriate methodology, and Vani failed to discharge the burden of proof with coherent, reconciled evidence to rebut the assessments. Both the VAT and CT appeals were dismissed and the taxpayer has 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

Wimmer Family Office Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 882 (TC) 10 June 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Wimmer Family Office Ltd's First Appeal for want of jurisdiction because the appellant had notified the Tribunal before giving the required written notice of appeal to the relevant HMRC officer under ss.31 and 49D TMA 1970. The Tribunal found no evidence that the statutory written notice was given to the officer who issued the decision prior to lodging the First Appeal and that communications to general HMRC mailboxes did not satisfy the statutory requirement. The First Appeal (TC/2025/02113) was struck out under Rule 8(2)(a). Parties may apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 within 56 days.

TPY Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 843 (TC) 5 June 2026 TPY Limited challenged the validity of three HMRC letters dated 28 March 2022 as a purported notice of VAT assessment and sought a preliminary hearing on that issue. The Tribunal refused the application, holding the question was not a standalone "knockout" point because other assessments and decisions (notably the December 2023 amendment and February 2024 decisions) would still leave live issues, and the proposed preliminary issue involved mixed fact and law likely requiring witness evidence. The Tribunal directed progression to a single substantive hearing with updated case directions.

Adrian Filimon v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 842 (TC) 4 June 2026 This appeal concerned civil Customs and Excise evasion penalties issued to Adrian Filimon after 102,200 concealed cigarettes were found in his trailer at Dover and an officer recorded that he "accepted ownership" but later said Mr Filimon had merely nodded. The tribunal found HMRC had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that Mr Filimon acted dishonestly and therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the penalties. The tribunal nevertheless recorded that had dishonesty been established, Mr Filimon’s failure to answer HMRC correspondence would have justified upholding the penalties.

WWM (Harrogate) LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 832 (TC) 4 June 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC closure notices disallowing an £860,662 "goodwill" entry in WWM (Harrogate) LLP's accounts, arising from an alleged 2014 transfer by Mr Walters of personal goodwill into the LLP. The Tribunal found no evidence of a transferable goodwill asset owned by Mr Walters in 2014, held that any goodwill attaching to the business after 2008 accrued to WWM Ltd., and concluded the LLP did not acquire goodwill or the claimed capital. The closure notices were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Anthony Wong v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 822 (TC) 3 June 2026 Mr Wong appealed a personal liability notice and sought costs of £5,500 under Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 rule 10(1)(b) after HMRC notified it would not defend the appeal. The Tribunal rejected the application, holding that the conduct relied on by Mr Wong occurred before the appeal and so could not found a rule 10(1)(b) order, HMRC’s withdrawal 43 days after notification was not unreasonable, and parts of the claimed costs predated the appeal or related to the company rather than the appellant. No costs were awarded and quantum was not assessed.

Big and Small Construction Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 816 (TC) 3 June 2026 Big and Small Construction Limited (BSCL) appealed HMRC’s denial of input tax of £624,162 and a section 69C penalty of £187,248.60 alleging some purchases were connected to VAT fraud. The tribunal held BSCL should have known that supplies from Services A‑Z Ltd in periods 12/19 and 03/20 were connected to fraud so input tax for those items was denied, but allowed input tax for other suppliers and allowed the penalty appeal in full, reducing the penalty to nil.

3V International Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 815 (TC) 2 June 2026 3V imported PPE in spring 2020 claiming Disaster Relief via NIRU certificates but most consignments were sold on or exported to Germany and some donated; the Tribunal held the imports did not meet the Commission Decision's Conditions for Disaster Relief because Condition C requires goods actually to be imported by or on behalf of an eligible body. The first two consignments exported to Germany were treated as transiting for consumption there so import VAT was payable in Germany, while customs duty was initially payable in the UK but fully remitted under Article 120 UCC because exceptional pandemic circumstances and absence of deception or obvious negligence justified remission.

Mypay Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 807 (TC) 2 June 2026 MyPay, an umbrella employer, appealed HMRC assessments that travel‑expense reimbursements to its workers for assignment travel were taxable and subject to NICs. The Tribunal found each fixed‑period assignment created a separate employment (no overarching contract across gaps) and that the travel payments were ordinary commuting expenses not deductible under s338 and not covered by MyPay’s 2008 s65 dispensation. The appeal was dismissed and the HMRC determinations were upheld.

TP (Evenlode) LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 831 (TC) 2 June 2026 TP (Evenlode) LLP appealed VAT assessments by HMRC and HMRC applied to strike out the appeal for non-compliance with a Tribunal direction to serve specified documents. The Tribunal found TP had complied: the ICA invoices were provided and bank statements covering 1 Dec 2016–30 Nov 2017 were produced, so Direction 1 was not breached, and TP's omission to give a 13 April 2026 update did not meet the high threshold for strike out under rule 8(3)(b). HMRC's strike-out application of 29 April 2026 was dismissed.

Ian Sinclair & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 798 (TC) 29 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether an approximately 1-acre field contiguous with a purchased dwelling formed part of the dwelling's "grounds" for SDLT. The FTT carried out a multifactorial factual assessment (contiguity, proportion, use, control, history, planning status and the grazing arrangement) and found the Field formed part of the grounds despite a limited, intermittent grazing arrangement. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's closure notice and residential-rate SDLT treatment were upheld.

Neil Griffin v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 801 (TC) 29 May 2026 This appeal concerned a joint excise and customs evasion penalty imposed after the appellant was intercepted at Heathrow with 6,000 cigarettes. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant’s importation was dishonest, but accepted some mitigation for disclosure and cooperation (including telephone assistance and literacy barriers) and reduced the penalty from £2,940 to £1,764. The Tribunal rejected inability to pay or arguments about the fairness of the law as grounds for mitigation. Permission to appeal remains available.

George Star Builders Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 800 (TC) 28 May 2026 George Star Builders Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to give a Regulation 9 direction under the Construction Industry Scheme, arguing it had taken "reasonable care" to comply. The Tribunal found the company did not take reasonable care because its director, aware payments could have tax implications, paid subcontractors off the books and failed to consult or fully inform retained advisers. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's refusal upheld.

Lifeplus Europe Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 797 (TC) 28 May 2026 Lifeplus Europe Ltd appealed an HMRC Schedule 36 information notice that sought Eurark LLC consolidated and entity financial statements for 2014–2022 in a transfer pricing enquiry. The FtT found HMRC had not shown those third‑party parent company accounts were "reasonably required" for the enquiry and that the Appellant did not have the requisite "possession or power" to obtain them. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the Information Notice as to those items.

Philip McBean v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 799 (TC) 28 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether Mr McBean should have been VAT‑registered from 1 October 2013, whether he had a reasonable excuse under Schedule 41 para 20 for failing to notify and so avoid a penalty, and whether HMRC's VAT assessments could be challenged at the Tribunal. The FTT found his taxable supplies in the year to August 2013 exceeded the registration threshold, dismissed his claimed reasonable excuse (a mistaken belief that the threshold related to profit), upheld the Schedule 41 penalty, and held the VAT assessments were not appealable because no returns had been filed. The appeal was dismissed.

UK luxury Heights Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 796 (TC) 28 May 2026 This appeal arose from a Regulation 13 determination and Schedule 55 penalties for failure to operate CIS deductions to 5 April 2022. The appellant sought wide disclosure of HMRC internal documents to challenge HMRC's refusal of Reg 9(4) condition B relief and the penalty calculations; the Tribunal refused the disclosure application and struck out the part of the appeal based on Reg 9(4) condition B for lack of Tribunal jurisdiction. The Tribunal held remaining penalty issues could be decided without HMRC internal deliberations, and preserved the appellant's right to seek permission to appeal.

Athena Luxe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 775 (TC) 22 May 2026 Athena Luxe applied late for recovery of costs after a successful appeal against HMRC. The First-tier Tribunal admitted the out-of-time application, refused Athena’s claim for indemnity costs, and ordered HMRC to pay costs on the standard basis, summarily assessed at £9,500 with an itemised breakdown. The award must be paid within 28 days.

HBS Enterprises Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 764 (TC) 22 May 2026 HBS Enterprises Ltd appealed VAT assessments issued by HMRC for quarters 05/23, 08/23, 11/23 and 02/24 arising from sales made on Amazon. The Tribunal found HMRC's arithmetic errors in some assessments and varied or set aside them accordingly, held that Amazon's treatment or accounting for VAT did not relieve a UK‑established seller of its obligation to account for UK output VAT on its taxable supplies, and accepted that the assessments were made to HMRC's "best judgment" even though numeric adjustments were required. The 05/23 assessment was set aside; the 08/23 assessment was varied; the 11/23 and 02/24 assessments were varied with directions to exclude identified non‑UK transactions and for the parties to agree adjusted figures.

J&T Goods Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 777 (TC) 21 May 2026 J&T Goods Ltd appealed an HMRC amendment to its VAT return but HMRC informed the Tribunal it would not defend the appeal and subsequently withdrew the underlying decision. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that HMRC had withdrawn the 18 July 2025 decision, which removed the appeal's subject matter and deprived the Tribunal of jurisdiction. The appellant's application to reinstate the appeal was refused and the proceedings remain struck out. Parties were informed of the right to seek permission to appeal under Rule 39 within 56 days.

PAP Solutions Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 761 (TC) 21 May 2026 PAP Solutions Ltd (controlled by Dr Apostolos Papadopoulos) exported smoking-paraphernalia to two Bulgarian companies and zero-rated 14 intra‑EU supplies; HMRC denied zero‑rating, imposed a s69C penalty, and issued a s69D personal liability notice to Dr Papadopoulos. The tribunal found the Bulgarian customers had carried out fraudulent VAT evasion, held that PAP knew or alternatively should have known the supplies were connected to the fraud, and that PAP had not taken every reasonable step to prevent participation. As a result, HMRC’s refusal to zero‑rate, the s69C penalty (£29,574.90) and the personal liability notice were upheld.

Madana Saibo Mohamed Hakeem v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 744 (TC) 19 May 2026 Mr Hakeem appealed penalties for failing to notify rental income for tax years to 2017–2020, arguing reliance on a friend's incorrect advice and financial hardship. The Tribunal applied the reasonable-excuse test, found his reliance on informal unverified advice and his lack of funds did not constitute a reasonable excuse, dismissed the appeal, and corrected the penalty calculation under s.50(7) TMA, increasing it from £1,153.84 to £1,174.54.

Paul Bryan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 743 (TC) 19 May 2026 This appeal concerned Mr Paul Bryan’s third application under s.28 TMA for directions that HMRC issue closure notices for his 2017 and 2018 self-assessment enquiries. The tribunal found HMRC had reasonable grounds to continue enquiries because material matters (reconciliation of office and client account movements, disbursements, and work-in-progress calculations) remained unresolved. The application was dismissed and no direction to issue closure notices was made.

Paul Joseph Bryan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1149 (TC) 19 May 2026 This appeal concerned the Appellant's fourth application seeking directions that HMRC issue closure notices for the tax years to 5 April 2017 and 2018. The Tribunal found the application had no realistic prospect of success because the evidential deficiencies identified in an earlier (Third) decision remained unremedied and the new application merely repeated prior arguments. The application was struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) as an abuse of process and HMRC's strike‑out application was granted.

A Nurse v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 722 (TC) 15 May 2026 This case concerns an NHS bank worker who gave a colleague access to her Government Gateway login and whose Self Assessment returns (2019–20 to 2022–23) included large home-to-work travel claims submitted by that colleague. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC's closure notice for 2022–23 and discovery assessments for 2019–20 to 2021–22, finding the decision‑maker had a subjective belief with an objectively reasonable basis that tax was underpaid; but the Tribunal cancelled the Schedule 24 penalties by applying special reduction (with full mitigation for cooperation). The appellant remains liable to repay the tax recovered.

Join Her Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 724 (TC) 15 May 2026 Join Her Ltd appealed HMRC's 9 October 2025 decision reducing its input tax to nil. HMRC withdrew that decision before the Tribunal and the Tribunal struck the appeal out, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the decision under challenge had been withdrawn; HMRC then issued a replacement decision on 18 February 2026 and the Tribunal directed any challenge be brought to that extant decision.

Ross Michael Coates & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 723 (TC) 15 May 2026 This case concerns RCS's application to bar HMRC for deliberately failing to comply with a Tribunal direction requiring both parties to serve listing information on the Tribunal and each other. The Tribunal found HMRC deliberately breached the direction and that the conduct was serious, but dismissed the barring application as disproportionate because RCS suffered no real prejudice and the substantive hearing was listed as intended. The substantive appeal therefore remains listed; RCS may seek permission to appeal.

Smartprice (NE) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 721 (TC) 15 May 2026 This appeal concerns Smartprice (NE) Ltd’s application for expanded disclosure from HMRC in a VAT appeal where HMRC pleads the appellant knew or ought to have known the supplies were connected to VAT fraud (no dishonesty alleged). The Tribunal accepted HMRC’s unchallenged evidence that reasonable searches were conducted, and refused the CPR‑style and additional disclosure sought as disproportionate and not shown to be necessary for fair determination. The default, limited disclosure regime under rule 27 was held to remain appropriate and the application for further disclosure was dismissed.

Jeremy Francis Herrmann v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 715 (TC) 14 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether HMRC could, by reallocating payments after the relevant dates, treat earlier timely payments as unpaid and so trigger late payment surcharges (2008/09 & 2009/10) and late payment penalties (2020/21 & 2021/22). The First-tier Tribunal held the statutory tests are snapshot questions to be decided at the statutory trigger dates and that HMRC’s retrospective reallocation could not create a default on those dates. The taxpayer’s appeals were allowed.

Mark Gadsden v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 720 (TC) 14 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether Mr Gadsden’s long failure to pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions (1981–2014) amounted to ignorance or error not caused by a lack of due care and diligence under regulation 6 of the 2001 Regulations. The Tribunal accepted that he engaged and reasonably relied on professional accountants, found HMRC had not proved contemporaneous notices were sent or received or would have plainly alerted him to the separate Class 2 obligation, and allowed the appeal. HMRC was directed to treat the specified Class 2 contributions as paid for contributory benefit purposes.

Take 3.9 TV Partnership & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 696 (TC) 12 May 2026 This appeal concerned five Take 3 partnerships disputing HMRC closure notices for 2001/02 and 2002/03 about whether their film-production payments (T3 Advances) were trading production expenditure. The FTT held each partnership was carrying on a trade but only the equity component of each T3 Advance qualified as revenue expenditure wholly and exclusively for that trade; the larger debt-funded component was characterised as repayable funding/loan and did not qualify. The Tribunal rejected equitable and public‑law bars to HMRC’s challenge and directed amendment of the closure notices accordingly.

Vereley Homes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 695 (TC) 12 May 2026 Vereley Homes Ltd purchased two adjoining titles and HMRC issued a closure notice treating the acquisition as wholly residential for SDLT, increasing the tax due. The Tribunal found that the smaller parcel (Plot 2) formed part of the garden/grounds of the house on Plot 1 at the time of acquisition, so the higher residential SDLT treatment applied. The appellant's appeal was dismissed and the closure notice upheld.

Apollo Belvedere Services LLP (In Liquidation) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 687 (TC) 11 May 2026 This case concerns whether Amanda Staveley can be substituted for Apollo Belvedere Services LLP (in liquidation) in an appeal against an HMRC closure notice, or alternatively added as a respondent, and whether the Tribunal can prevent the liquidators from withdrawing the LLP’s appeal or dissolving the LLP without permission. The Tribunal held Staveley cannot be substituted as appellant because she lacks a personal right to appeal the partnership’s closure notice, but she may be added as a respondent under rule 9(2). The Tribunal also directed that the liquidators may not withdraw the LLP’s appeal or dissolve the LLP without its permission and reinstated amended case‑management directions.

HC-One No 1 Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 678 (TC) 8 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether Schedule 7 group relief was disapplied because the intra‑group transfers and subsequent members' voluntary liquidation had a main purpose of tax avoidance, and whether s75A could recharacterise those transfers as scheme transactions; HMRC also issued discovery assessments and block assessments. The Tribunal held that group relief was properly available (appeal allowed on the Main Purpose Issue) and that s75A did not apply to recharacterise the intra‑group acquisitions (appeal allowed on the Involved Issue). The Tribunal nevertheless found HMRC’s discovery assessments would have been validly made and treated each returned linked‑transaction bundle as the relevant chargeable transaction for assessment purposes; quantum was considered hypothetically but was not decisive.

Francis Bridgeman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 679 (TC) 7 May 2026 This case concerns an application for permission to bring a 529‑day late appeal against HMRC’s 12 April 2024 review upholding a final closure notice for tax year 2013 (£16,891.75). The Tribunal applied the Martland three-stage test, accepted that the Appellant genuinely believed an 11 May 2024 email amounted to valid notice of appeal, and on balance granted permission to file the late appeal, ordering it consolidated with an existing in‑time appeal (TC/2024/01247).

Jaroslaw Krason v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 675 (TC) 7 May 2026 This appeal concerned Schedule 24 penalties totalling £224,750 imposed on Mr Krason for alleged "deliberate and concealed" inaccuracies in his self‑assessment returns (alternatively carelessness). The First‑tier Tribunal found Mr Krason honest, lacked financial knowledge, relied on his long‑standing accountant Moor Green/Mr Davood, did not understand the trust scheme or key documents and had no blind‑eye knowledge. Applying the statutory tests and authorities, the Tribunal concluded he acted neither deliberately nor carelessly and cancelled the penalties; it also directed HMRC to explain a previously quoted £164,000 figure and invited HMRC to review for possible costs of about £9,000.

Beer Express Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 672 (TC) 6 May 2026 Beer Express Ltd appealed HMRC's disallowance of enhanced R&D tax relief for four projects covering accounting periods to 30 June 2020 and 30 June 2021. The First-tier Tribunal held Beer Express had not discharged the evidential burden to show the projects met the BEIS criteria for R&D, treating the project reports as unsupported assertions in the absence of cogent evidence from competent professionals or contemporaneous participants, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal deferred determination of the exact qualifying costs to a later stage.

John Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 663 (TC) 6 May 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery (income tax) and best-judgment (VAT) assessments plus related penalties for periods 1994/95–2014/15. The tribunal found Officer Harris’ discovery assessments and HMRC’s best-judgment VAT assessments were valid and timely (or within extended time limits because the appellant’s conduct was deliberate), held that the appellant continued to run and beneficially own the business after 1 March 2003 (making him liable for tax/VAT where applicable), allowed the appeal only against penalties for failure-to-file where HMRC failed to prove service of notices, and dismissed the remaining appeals including those against fraud/penalty assessments. Quantified adjustments to turnover and expenses were made and the final figures were to be directed separately.

Jonathan Nuttall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 674 (TC) 6 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether 7,686 tonnes of bagged RDF were "disposed" on 28 September 2017 for landfill tax purposes following the dissolution of NKRL and automatic revocation of its Environment Agency licence. The First-tier Tribunal found no disposal happened on that date after applying a multi-factorial factual assessment (including the parties' rights, responsibilities and conduct) and allowed the taxpayers' appeals. The Tribunal also held that, although Parliament removed any formal statutory requirement of an intention to discard, intention remains a relevant factor in the factual assessment; and it would have reached the same conclusion even if intention were disregarded.

Omar Rafique v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 673 (TC) 6 May 2026 The First-tier Tribunal confirmed that Mr Omar Rafique’s appeal was automatically struck out after he failed to comply with an Unless order requiring specified documents, and refused his subsequent application to reinstate the appeal. The Tribunal found repeated non-compliance, inadequate explanations (including reliance on AI-generated emails containing fabricated or wrongly cited authorities), and that the appeal lacked sufficient merit or practicability to favour reinstatement. The Tribunal did not refer the matter for contempt.

Sweetmotion Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 657 (TC) 5 May 2026 This FTT decision considered whether Sweetmotion Ltd’s input tax claims were recoverable given that its suppliers were fraudulent defaulters, applying the Kittel test of (i) fraudulent evasion, (ii) connection of the appellant’s purchases to that fraud, and (iii) the appellant’s knowledge (actual or constructive) of that connection. The Tribunal found HMRC proved fraud and connection but that the director did not actually know; however he should have known from 19 January 2021 (after HMRC’s meeting and guidance), so input tax was denied only for transactions on or after that date. The company penalty under s.69C VATA 1994 was upheld but reduced by 25% for cooperation, and recalculated to apply from 19 January 2021.

British Institute of Technology Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 651 (TC) 1 May 2026 The Tribunal refused HMRC’s application to strike out British Institute of Technology Limited’s appeals against a VAT assessment and related penalty, concluding the second appeal was not an abuse of process and that both appeals have realistic prospects of success. HMRC’s late documents were not admitted and the case was directed to proceed to a substantive hearing with case management directions. The decision emphasised that a previous appeal struck out at an early procedural stage does not automatically bar a later appeal on the same transaction.

Michael Parker v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 652 (TC) 1 May 2026 This appeal concerned whether four UK days in 2019/20 should be disregarded under Schedule 45 paras 22(3) (transit) and 22(4) (exceptional circumstances) so that the appellant met the third automatic overseas test. The First-tier Tribunal found three days (8, 17 and 28 Feb) were transit days as the appellant arrived as a passenger and engaged only in activities ancillary to onward travel, and that 29 Feb was an exceptional-circumstances day because Storm Jorge closed Dublin Airport and prevented departure despite the appellant intending to leave as soon as permitted. With those four days disregarded the appellant’s UK day count fell to 89, the third overseas test was met, and the appeal was allowed.

Professional Game Match Officials Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 654 (TC) 1 May 2026 This case concerns whether individual match engagements of National Group referees paid by PGMOL were contracts of employment or contracts for services for PAYE/NIC purposes. Applying the multifactorial Stage‑3 evaluative enquiry to the First‑tier Tribunal's factual findings, the Tribunal held that, despite the presence of the irreducible minimum of mutuality and a sufficient framework of control, the cumulative picture pointed to contracts for services. The FTT therefore allowed the appeal and discharged HMRC’s PAYE/NIC determinations.

Top Notch Accountants Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 653 (TC) 1 May 2026 This case concerned FTN penalties on Top Notch Accountants Limited (TNAL) for incorrect CJRS claims and a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) making its sole director, Mr Nazrul Islam (NI), personally liable. The Tribunal found TNAL/NI knew they were not entitled to CJRS for March–October 2020 because required RTI had not been submitted and supporting documents had been manipulated, so FTN penalties of £10,817 and the PLN for that amount were upheld. The Tribunal allowed the appeals in respect of later periods, reducing the penalties by £2,726.40. Permission to apply for appeal was preserved.

Vanessa Cristini v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 650 (TC) 30 April 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application for further and better particulars of Vanessa Cristini's appeals against VAT assessments totalling £120,796. The Tribunal held the appellant's grounds of appeal were insufficiently particularised—failing to state the factual and legal points she relied on—and granted HMRC's application, directing the appellant to provide appropriately detailed grounds so HMRC can respond.

Andy Irons Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 644 (TC) 29 April 2026 Andy Irons Ltd appealed tax decisions to the Tribunal without first giving written notice of appeal to HMRC as required by TMA s.31 and s.49. HMRC applied to strike out for want of jurisdiction and the Tribunal held the statutory sequence is mandatory, that HMRC’s care-and-management powers cannot cure the defect, and struck the appeal out under Rule 8(2)(a). The Tribunal did not decide any separate application for permission for a late appeal.

Sellathamby Sivarajah v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 649 (TC) 29 April 2026 This appeal concerned an HMRC penalty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 for trading while unregistered: Mr Sivarajah traded as a self-employed bookkeeper from April to November 2022 without registering and HMRC imposed a penalty under Regulation 76. The Tribunal found he had not taken "all reasonable steps" or exercised "all due diligence" because he failed to resolve his uncertainty by contacting HMRC or his supervisory body, and so Regulation 76(4) did not bar a penalty. The Tribunal also held the penalty, calculated under HMRC’s authorised Penalties Framework and reduced for voluntary registration and timely payment, was appropriate, proportionate and dissuasive. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty confirmed.

Stefan-Valentin Moscal v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 640 (TC) 29 April 2026 Mr Moscal appealed HMRC assessments/closure notices to the First-tier Tribunal but filed the appeal with the Tribunal before giving written notice of appeal to HMRC as required by sections 31/31A and 49D TMA. HMRC applied to strike out for want of jurisdiction and the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because there was no evidence HMRC received prior written notice, striking the appeal out under Rule 8(2)(a). The Tribunal also recorded that, had it had jurisdiction, the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success.

W. Reilly Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 641 (TC) 28 April 2026 W. Reilly Ltd appealed HMRC’s denial of VAT input tax (about £274k) and a related penalty arising from supplies from Simplify and SMP. Central issues were whether HMRC’s assessments were within the one‑year time limit in s 73(6)(b) VATA and whether the appellant “knew or should have known” the supplies were connected with VAT fraud (Kittel). The tribunal found HMRC had not shown the appellant should have known of supplier fraud and allowed the appeals, restoring the input tax and dismissing the penalty.

Purple Pay Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 625 (TC) 24 April 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out three grounds in appeals against a Schedule 35 FA 2014 stop‑notice penalty and a subsequent joint and several liability notice. The Tribunal admitted the Company's late appeal but held it has no jurisdiction to entertain collateral challenges to the stop notice where statutory withdrawal/appeal procedures were not followed, and struck out three discrete grounds (ceased trading at time of notice; no promoter; no breach) as having no realistic prospect of success and an abuse of process. The parties were directed to agree further case‑management directions; rights to seek permission to appeal were recorded.

Sarah Thomas v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 627 (TC) 24 April 2026 This appeal concerned whether the assignment on 1 February 2010 of a debt (the NRL loan) to Mrs Sarah Thomas amounted to a taxable distribution to the extent it exceeded her shareholder loan account, and related discovery, s.54 agreement and penalty issues. The Tribunal found the Appellant's loan account at that date was £1,480,684.93, the NRL loan value £2,135,713, and the excess £655,028.07 was taxable as a distribution; HMRC’s income tax assessment (issued after a valid discovery) and the deliberate inaccuracy penalty were upheld, subject to adjustments reflecting HMRC’s revised tax calculation. The Tribunal also held there was no s.54 agreement discharging the assessment.

Thomas Joseph Dowey v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 626 (TC) 24 April 2026 This case concerns whether the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear a VAT repayment claim brought by the recipient of a supply who paid VAT but did not account for it to HMRC. The Tribunal held that s80 VATA 1994 repayment claims are confined to the person who has accounted to the Commissioners for the VAT, so no valid s80 claim (and thus no appeal under s83(1)(t)) arose and HMRC’s strike-out application was granted. The appeal was struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Rules.

Gerrit Wals v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 621 (TC) 23 April 2026 This case concerned Schedule 55 late-filing penalties imposed by HMRC for tax years 2010/11, 2011/12, 2012/13 and 2014/15. The FTT, on a Rule 41 review, found no valid notices to file had been served, treated the returns as voluntary and applied a statutory deeming provision that a voluntary return is treated as made in response to a notice given on the date the return was received. Because the deemed notice date coincided with the delivery date, the returns were not late and the appeal against the penalties was allowed; the Tribunal set aside its earlier partial dismissal and removed the penalties.

Michael Krishnan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 622 (TC) 23 April 2026 This appeal sought permission to notify a late appeal against a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) issued 6 June 2017 holding the appellant personally liable for a £42,707.70 VAT penalty. The appellant notified the appeal on 11 October 2024, some 2,653 days late, gave no cogent explanation for the delay and did not attend the hearing. Applying the Martland three-stage approach and giving weight to timely litigation and statutory limits, the Tribunal refused permission to bring the appeal out of time.

Rizwan Butt v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 623 (TC) 23 April 2026 This appeal concerned director liability notices issued under s69D VATA to Mr Rizwan Butt arising from denied input tax and company penalties imposed on Quantum London Ltd for VAT periods 09/19–09/21. The First-tier Tribunal held many suppliers in Quantum’s supply chains were fraudulent defaulters or buffers, found that Mr Butt had “blind-eye” knowledge (or alternatively should have known) of the transactions’ connection to MTIC-type fraud, and dismissed his appeal; late documentary evidence sought by Mr Butt was refused.

Talbot Kwok v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 624 (TC) 23 April 2026 This appeal concerned the Appellant’s application for costs after HMRC withdrew five days before a listed one‑day hearing in a dispute over a £62,990.26 input VAT repayment. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to pay the Appellant’s costs of and incidental to the appeal, assessed on the standard basis, and declined to undertake a summary assessment; the costs are to be subject to detailed assessment if not agreed.

Chester Lettings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 614 (TC) 21 April 2026 Chester Lettings Ltd received £100,000 under a settlement for mis‑sold Interest Rate Hedging Products and treated it as a capital receipt; HMRC assessed it as taxable revenue under the loan relationships code. The First‑tier Tribunal held the payment was basic redress compensating for excessive payments under the mis‑sold IRHPs and therefore a revenue receipt (and, alternatively, a non‑trading loan relationship profit), dismissed the appeal, and upheld the Closure Notice.

Meydan Asset Management Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 613 (TC) 21 April 2026 This appeal concerned six Schedule 56 penalties for non‑payment of Accelerated Payment Notices (APNs) issued to Meydan Asset Management Ltd after it did not pay APNs it had challenged. The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction in the penalty appeal to determine APN validity, rejected the Appellant's reasonable‑excuse and special‑circumstances arguments (including reliance on the director's personal financial difficulties and alleged procedural defects), and dismissed the appeal, affirming the 5% penalties.

Rune Madsen v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 615 (TC) 21 April 2026 This appeal concerned a 2014 SDLT discovery assessment made after Mr Madsen's 2011 purchase and a contemporaneous call option. The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that a 31 January 2012 letter notifying HMRC was posted and received, that it was at least partly sent on the purchaser’s behalf, and that the SDLT1 together with that letter would have put a notional HMRC officer reasonably on notice of the under‑assessment. The discovery assessment was therefore invalid and set aside.

Pacfic Computers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 603 (TC) 17 April 2026 This appeal concerned whether Pacfic Computers Ltd (PCL) knew, or ought to have known, that its CPU and iPod trades were connected to MTIC VAT fraud and so HMRC correctly denied recovery of £428,525.74 input VAT for 09/06. The Tribunal found that PCL (through its directors, particularly Mr Roach) knew the transactions were connected to fraud, and alternatively that PCL ought to have known, and dismissed the appeal. PCL may apply for permission to appeal within 56 days.

Shinebrook Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 602 (TC) 16 April 2026 This appeal concerned whether Shinebrook Ltd's purchase of 1023 Garratt Lane qualified for Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) for SDLT and whether the option grant (1 April 2021) and completion (12 May 2021) were linked transactions. The Tribunal found Shinebrook had not shown the property was "in the process of being constructed or adapted" into dwellings at the effective date and that the option and purchase were linked, so the land was non‑residential for SDLT and the Closure Notice increasing tax was upheld.

Douglas Boulton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 583 (TC) 15 April 2026 Mr Douglas Boulton, sole director/shareholder of Sameday Express UK Ltd, appealed a 2019–20 income tax discovery assessment and a Schedule 24 penalty after he omitted any taxable release/write‑off arising from an overdrawn director’s loan following a £60,000 settlement and the liquidator’s letter stating the balance was "effectively written off". The Tribunal held HMRC made a valid discovery, the combination of the settlement, the liquidator’s letter and cessation of recovery amounted in substance to a release/write‑off taxable to Mr Boulton of £91,802, and his omission was careless; the assessment and 15% penalty were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Holiday Booking Management Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 587 (TC) 15 April 2026 Holiday Booking Management Ltd appealed HMRC's 26 February 2025 decision reducing its VAT repayment claim from £196,879.50 to £9,908.50 after a pre-repayment check. HMRC sought to strike out the appeal arguing the reduction was an adjustment under s25(3) VATA 1994 and not an assessment subject to s73 time limits; the Tribunal found the appellant had an arguable case that s73 time limits might apply. The Tribunal dismissed HMRC's strike-out application and gave directions for further case management.

Mariusz Jeske v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 588 (TC) 15 April 2026 HMRC applied to strike out the part of Mr Jeske’s appeal that challenged his self-assessed income tax liability for 2017/18. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against a taxpayer’s self-assessment and struck out that part of the appeal, while allowing the appellant’s challenge to late payment penalties to continue.

Nwaneri v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 581 (TC) 15 April 2026 This appeal by a locum doctor challenged HMRC closure notices disallowing travel and subsistence claims for 2019/20–2021/22 and related Schedule 24 penalties. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC’s enquiries were valid, treated each engagement via an employment intermediary as a separate employment under s.339A, found NHS Southport and NHS Shrewsbury were permanent (not temporary) workplaces so travel was ordinary commuting and not deductible, and disallowed subsistence claims for lack of necessary evidence. The Tribunal also found the inaccuracies deliberate on the balance of probabilities and upheld the penalties (as varied on review); the appeal was dismissed in full.

AAMRL Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 582 (TC) 14 April 2026 This Tribunal considered consolidated appeals by AAMRL Ltd and its sole director, Maria Rosa Loria, against HMRC decisions to deregister AAMRL, deny input VAT (~£7.35m), and impose s69C (company) and s69D (personal) penalties for involvement in VAT fraud. The Tribunal found HMRC proved the transactions were connected with fraud and that deregistration was proportionate; it held AAMRL should have known of the fraud only after HMRC’s 28 July 2022 intervention, so input‑tax denial and the company penalty apply for transactions after that date but not before. The 11/22 assessment was upheld; Ms Loria was not the guiding mind but became attributable to the company by deliberate blindness after 28 July 2022, so a personal penalty was imposed but reduced to 10% of the recalculated company penalty. HMRC must recalculate denied input VAT and the penalties accordingly.

Centrica Energy Storage Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 566 (TC) 10 April 2026 This case concerned whether Centrica Energy Storage Ltd (CESL) carried out "oil extraction activities" for its associated company Centrica Offshore UK Ltd (COUK) during 2017–2018 so that CESL's service fees fell within the ring fence. The Tribunal held the statutory wording, read with context and legislative history, covers activities performed by a company extracting gas under rights held by an associated company, and that CESL's services (including the 15% mark-up) were sufficiently proximate and operationally integral to extraction to be ring-fence income. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's closure notices were upheld.

Clearwater Hampers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 567 (TC) 10 April 2026 Clearwater Hampers appealed HMRC's refusal to repay VAT charged on gift hampers sold in lidded wicker baskets. The Tribunal held that, on the facts, the lidded wicker baskets were ancillary to the supply of food and drink (a means of presentation/protection) from the viewpoint of the average purchaser and therefore shared the vat treatment of the principal supplies; the appeal was allowed and the composite VAT rate is to be calculated excluding the value of the lidded baskets.

Madeleine Clark v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 559 (TC) 9 April 2026 This case concerns Ms Madeleine Clark's application for costs and for re-allocation of her Tribunal appeal to Complex (or Basic) after HMRC conceded a Regulation 185 adjustment and cancelled penalties that arose from conduct before the appeal. The Tribunal held the appeal should remain Standard, refused re-allocation, and dismissed the costs application because its rule 10(1)(b) costs jurisdiction applies only to unreasonable conduct occurring after the appeal was brought. The prior direction to produce a statement of case was retrospectively set aside as unnecessary.

Nellstar Properties Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 564 (TC) 9 April 2026 This case concerned four VAT assessments totaling £131,611 issued to Nellstar for construction works at The Hobbit, Sowerby Bridge, disputed as either zero-rated residential cottages or standard-rated hotel extension. The Tribunal found the works were, on the balance of probabilities, an extension to the hotel (15 rooms) consistent with planning permission, and that Nellstar’s director knew the true nature of the works so HMRC could treat the loss as deliberate. The Tribunal further held the assessments were served within the one-year period from the material HMRC received on 28 June 2024 and dismissed the appeal.

Preston Benson & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 565 (TC) 9 April 2026 This appeal concerned a late wasted costs application filed by an agent on behalf of Mr Benson, Really Local Group (RL) and Peckham Levels Limited (PLL) in relation to four Tribunal matters. The Tribunal struck out the PLL element for lack of authority and refused to admit the costs applications from Mr Benson and RL because they were substantially out of time and unsupported by a compliant costs schedule; it also said that, had the applications been admitted, they disclosed no reasonable prospect of success. Permission to appeal is preserved.

BGC Services Holdings LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 558 (TC) 2 April 2026 BGC Services Holdings LLP appealed HMRC Regulation 80 determinations totalling £96,037,893 and sought a preliminary issues hearing limited to whether, when issued, it "appeared to HMRC that there may be tax payable" under Reg 80(1). The Tribunal held the Reg 80(1) question is a mixed fact-and-law issue capable in principle of being tried preliminarily but refused to order a standalone preliminary hearing because of overlap with best-judgement issues (Reg 80(2)), risk of appeal, delay and costs. Directions for the main appeal were retained.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Tailored UK Services Limited (in Liquidation) [2026] UKFTT 518 (TC) 2 April 2026 This Tribunal applied an existing DOTAS order and held that Tailored UK Services Ltd (in liquidation) was a promoter of notifiable "enhanced umbrella" arrangements and failed to notify them from 25 August 2017 until 13 June 2022. The company and then its liquidators had no reasonable excuse for the delay, and the statutory maximum penalty of £1,178,800 was imposed; HMRC were also awarded costs to be assessed.

Simon Wilders v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 517 (TC) 1 April 2026 Mr Wilders appealed HMRC’s closure notice denying share loss relief for his 2011 subscription in SSVL after a failed wreck search. The Tribunal found the purchase was an arm’s‑length composite bargain valuing the shares at £864 each but held the payment was not given wholly and exclusively for the shares because it bought a bundled package (commercial participation plus a tax‑manufactured benefit). The Tribunal also found the loan/novation mechanics were designed so repayments would not be required and that manufacturing the tax relief was one of the appellant’s main purposes, so anti‑avoidance provisions (s16A/s30 TCGA) excluded the loss. The appeal was dismissed.

The Personal Representatives of Mukesh Sehgal & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 516 (TC) 1 April 2026 This appeal concerned whether loan notes redeemed in 2006 were "situated outside the United Kingdom" because they were registered in Jersey, and whether the taxpayers were negligent in their 2006–07 returns. The First-tier Tribunal found no credible contemporaneous Jersey register and held the notes were situated in the UK, so the CGT assessments were upheld. The Tribunal nevertheless found the taxpayers had taken reasonable care in relying on professional advisers and set aside the negligence penalties in full.

BW Interiors Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 501 (TC) 31 March 2026 BW Interiors appealed a closure notice to the First-tier Tribunal after notifying the Tribunal without first giving written notice of appeal to HMRC as required by the Tax Management Act (TMA). HMRC applied to strike out for lack of jurisdiction; the Tribunal held the statutory scheme requires the appeal to be given to HMRC before notification to the Tribunal and struck the appeal out. The Tribunal also held HMRC’s incorrect advice or later “View of the Matter” could not cure the statutory notice requirement and that complaints about HMRC conduct or legitimate expectation are not matters for this appeal. The parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

Innovative Bites Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 500 (TC) 31 March 2026 This appeal concerned whether "Mega Marshmallows" are "sweetened prepared food which is normally eaten with the fingers" for the purposes of VAT Note 5. The First-tier Tribunal held that "normally" means more often than not (>50%) and that eating a roasted marshmallow as part of a s'more is not eating the marshmallow with the fingers. On the evidence the non-finger methods were more frequent, so the product is not normally eaten with the fingers and the appellant's appeal was allowed.

Simon Fleet v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 507 (TC) 31 March 2026 This appeal concerned a claim by Simon Fleet for charitable gift relief on a purported gift of Standard Chartered shares to Milia and a Schedule 24 FA2007 penalty arising from HMRC's closure notice. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence that the Appellant beneficially owned or transferred the shares and that Milia operated as a charity under ITA07 s989 at the time, and therefore dismissed the relief claim. The Tribunal also found the Arrangement was an undisclosed tax-avoidance scheme, that the Appellant was careless for Schedule 24 purposes, and upheld the penalty and refusal of special reduction or suspension.

Anston Investments Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 483 (TC) 30 March 2026 This appeal concerned whether large payments from Anston Investments Ltd to its parent charity Clydpride were disqualified from tax relief under s.193 CTA 2010 as conditional on or associated with the charity’s acquisition of the group, and whether the 2016 and 2017 discovery assessments were valid. The First-tier Tribunal found the donations were a longstanding practice tied to Anston’s post‑tax distributable profits and were not part of, or associated with, the acquisition, so there was no tax loss; accordingly the 2016 and 2017 discovery assessments were invalid/time‑barred and the timely 2018 assessment was reduced to nil. The appellant’s appeal was allowed in full.

James Jenkins-Yates v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 480 (TC) 27 March 2026 This appeal concerned a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) issued to Mr James Jenkins‑Yates for unpaid Class 1 National Insurance contributions of Houst Holdings Ltd. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the company's failure to pay declared NICs was attributable to the appellant's neglect and dismissed the appeal, upholding the PLN for £59,947.48 (unpaid NICs plus statutory interest). The tribunal rejected the appellant's reliance on delegation of financial management and lack of funds as excuses for non‑payment.

Yasir Badoume v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 484 (TC) 27 March 2026 This appeal challenged HMRC discovery assessments (2016–17 to 2020–21), a closure amendment for 2021–22 and Schedule 24 penalties arising from tax returns prepared by the appellant's agent. The Tribunal, proceeding in the appellant's absence, upheld the discovery assessments and closure notice, found the agent's conduct at least careless (in parts deliberate/reckless) and the appellant failed to take reasonable care, and dismissed the appeals while applying penalties at 25.5% of the under-assessed tax for each year after a modest reduction.

Jonathan Wood v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 589 (TC) 26 March 2026 This appeal concerned nine payments totalling £747,500 by Mr Wood to unconnected political/campaigning bodies and whether those payments fell outside a transfer of value under s10(1) IHTA or were exempt as normal expenditure under s21 IHTA. The Tribunal found the payments were transfers of value because they objectively and subjectively conferred gratuitous benefits and rejected the s21 defence because the donations were not part of a settled pattern or prior commitment. The appeal was dismissed.

Premier Care Direct Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 473 (TC) 25 March 2026 This case concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal may hear an appeal against a s.73 VAT assessment when the assessed amount has not been paid or deposited and no hardship decision exists. The Tribunal held the statutory "hardship gateway" (pay or deposit the tax, or obtain a hardship decision) must be satisfied before it can determine the appeal, rejected the appellant's reliance on HMRC correspondence, netting/set-off and estoppel arguments as displacing that gateway, and gave the appellant a time-limited opportunity to pay, deposit or apply for hardship rather than striking the appeal out immediately.

Kanbi Contemporary Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 841 (TC) 20 March 2026 This appeal concerned whether Kanbi Contemporary Ltd traded as an art market participant (AMP) without being registered under the MLR 2017 after a sale at an art fair in November 2022, and whether it had taken all reasonable steps to avoid a penalty. The Tribunal held the qualifying activity occurred in November 2022 (agreement and payment), so registration in March 2023 was late, but found the registration was unprompted and reduced the Type 2 penalty by 50% from £1,500 to £750; an administration charge of £350 was upheld.

Payroll & Pension Services (PPS Umbrella Company) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 415 (TC) 20 March 2026 This case concerns PPS Umbrella Company Ltd's FTT appeal against large PAYE/NIC determinations and its application for a stay of that appeal because provisional liquidators appointed after HMRC petitions had seized the company's assets, leaving it allegedly unable to fund litigation. The Tribunal granted a limited stay only until the High Court's preliminary hearing in PPS's Undertaking Application (and any appeal from that decision), refused HMRC's request for further information about how PPS will conduct the appeal, and left final resolution of the statutory point under the Social Security Administration Act 1992 to the High Court.

J & F Wilson Plumbing & Heating Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 403 (TC) 18 March 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments, closure notices and penalties for 2013–2021 based on disputed cash deposits and some vehicle transactions. The Tribunal accepted Mr Wilson as a credible witness and found, on the balance of probabilities, that the disputed cash derived from gambling rather than undisclosed company trading, so the assessments were not upheld to that extent and the appeal was allowed. Untested witness evidence was given no weight; lack of documentary proof of gambling did not automatically defeat the appellants’ case.

Jeremy John Hosking v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 406 (TC) 18 March 2026 Mr Jeremy Hosking appealed an HMRC determination charging £349,309 IHT on gifts totaling £1,737,236 made between 2011 and 2016, arguing they were exempt as "normal expenditure out of income" (IHTA 1984 s.21) or as political donations (s.24), and that the legislation breached Convention rights. The First-tier Tribunal found the gifts were sporadic, discretionary and unsupported by a formula or settled pattern, so they did not meet the s.21 normal-expenditure exemption, and it refused to read s.24 to cover non-party campaign bodies; no breach of Articles 10, 14 or A1P1 was found. The appeal was dismissed and the IHT determination upheld.

Surjit Singh Rai v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 404 (TC) 18 March 2026 This case concerns an application by Surjit Singh Rai to amend his appeal to add two legal grounds under ss 687(2) and 685(6) of the Income Tax Act 2007, challenging HMRC’s counteraction notice and assessment arising from a £10m capital reduction credited to his director’s loan account. The First-tier Tribunal granted permission to amend, finding the new grounds were primarily points of statutory interpretation, were notified in advance of witness evidence and listing, were not plainly without real prospect of success, and would not cause significant prejudice to HMRC. The tribunal therefore allowed the amendments and directed further procedural steps and time for any appeal of that decision.

Transwaste Recycling and Aggregates Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 515 (TC) 18 March 2026 This case concerns Transwaste and its director Paul Hornshaw appealing HMRC decisions denying input VAT and imposing penalties for supplies arranged via waste brokers and a haulier. The Tribunal found several suppliers (Biotech, Tees Valley, Hydro, Hydro GRP, Bull Freight) were fraudulent but held that Transwaste did not know or should have known most transactions were connected to fraud; however Transwaste should have known as to Tees Valley transactions after 5 April 2017 and Hydro GRP transactions after 24 September 2019. Appeals were allowed in part: HMRC’s denials and penalties were upheld only for those Tees Valley and Hydro GRP transactions; the rest were disallowed or quashed.

Worcester Spice Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1207 (TC) 17 March 2026 This appeal concerned a £855.64 VAT default surcharge charged after an 8/22 late payment and a history of earlier defaults and surcharge period extensions. HMRC’s electronic records showed receipt dates and SLNs; the appellant provided no contemporaneous evidence of a reasonable excuse predating the relevant due dates. The Tribunal accepted HMRC’s records, found no reasonable excuse, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the surcharge.

Alesen Direct Solutions Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 398 (TC) 13 March 2026 Alesen Direct Solutions Ltd appealed VAT assessments but applied to proceed without paying £33,196 on hardship grounds. The Tribunal found documentary evidence showed transfers of available funds to related parties and inconsistent oral evidence, concluding the company had voluntarily deprived itself of funds to create an impression of impecuniosity. The application to proceed without payment was refused; the company may seek permission to appeal.

Colin Sagar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 396 (TC) 13 March 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application for costs after the First-tier Tribunal struck out Mr Colin Sagar’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found limited instances of unreasonable conduct by Mr Sagar (insisting on an oral hearing after HMRC’s September 2025 clarification and some uncooperative conduct in April 2025) but held that the conduct's impact was minor and refused HMRC’s costs application. HMRC was found not to have acted unreasonably in defending the proceedings. The judge commented (obiter) on the status and hourly rates of HMRC litigators but made no costs order.

Jonathan King v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 394 (TC) 13 March 2026 This appeal challenged HMRC discovery assessments for 2008/09–2010/11 arising from the Appellant's participation in a marketed contractor loan scheme that routed pay into an Isle of Man EBT. The FTT found HMRC made the requisite s29(1) discoveries when their Step 2 calculations were completed and that, on the information reasonably available to an officer by the relevant closure dates, an officer could not have been expected to be aware of the insufficiency of tax (s29(5)/(6)). The appeal was dismissed.

Kammac Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 397 (TC) 13 March 2026 Kammac, an authorised warehouse keeper, sought specific disclosure from HMRC in appeals against three excise duty assessments and a linked penalty; HMRC had already made extensive standard and voluntary disclosure. The Tribunal refused the appellant’s application for four outstanding categories of specific disclosure because the requests were overbroad, unfocussed, lacked time and goods-specific limits, and would be disproportionately burdensome given the disclosed material. The Tribunal confirmed the application as framed did not meet the necessity, relevance and proportionality requirements for specific disclosure.

Shaban Suleman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 395 (TC) 13 March 2026 This case concerns Shaban Suleman's application to reinstate a tax appeal that had been struck out for failure to comply with Tribunal directions. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that directions and Unless Orders had been sent to the address on the notice of appeal, that the appellant (and/or his agent) failed to comply with six directions including two Unless Orders, and that those breaches were serious and significant with no good reason shown. Applying the Denton/Martland/Chappell three-stage framework and weighing prejudice and the public interest in efficient litigation, the tribunal refused reinstatement.

Gary Russell v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 367 (TC) 11 March 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Gary Russell's appeal against a 19 September 2024 Simple Assessment for underpaid income tax. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's grounds (lack of knowledge of liability, inability to pay, HMRC delay/negligence) because he did not dispute the assessed quantum or its calculation under the Income Tax Acts, and therefore struck out the appeal under Rule 8(2). The Tribunal also concluded there was no realistic prospect of success under Rule 8(3)(c) for the same reason.

Governance Ministries v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 371 (TC) 11 March 2026 This case concerns an appeal by Governance Ministries against HMRC about recovery of input VAT in broadcasting (value about £6m). HMRC withdrew from the appeal very late—by email 14 minutes before a skeleton argument deadline and about two weeks before a nine‑day hearing—leading the tribunal to award the appellant its substantive costs on the indemnity basis. The tribunal also ordered an interim payment of £400,000 within 14 days and held that costs of the costs application would be paid by HMRC but assessed on the standard basis.

James David Wood & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 370 (TC) 11 March 2026 This appeal concerned whether a house and an annex formed two dwellings for multiple dwellings relief (MDR) on SDLT at the completion date (23 August 2021). The tribunal applied the multifactorial Fiander approach and found the annex had sufficient physical features (kitchen/bathroom facilities, separate lockable external access, independent heating controls, fuse box and water stop) to be suitable for use as a single dwelling. The appeal was allowed and HMRC’s closure notice seeking additional SDLT was rejected in respect of the annex.

Kalinga Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 368 (TC) 11 March 2026 Kalinga Holdings appealed HMRC's refusal under regulation 9(5) CIS to relieve it of liability for under-deductions after Kalinga paid c.£1.45m to subcontractors without CIS deductions. The Tribunal accepted Kalinga genuinely believed CIS did not apply but found that belief was not formed after taking reasonable care because Kalinga relied solely on HMRC guidance (CIS340) despite project scale and warnings that specialist advice was needed. The Tribunal upheld HMRC's refusal and dismissed the appeal.

WM Morrison Supermarket Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 557 (TC) 11 March 2026 This appeal concerned whether aluminium foil imported by WM Morrison, declared as Thai origin after final processing in Thailand, was entitled to that origin or was instead an operation established principally to avoid EU anti‑dumping duty. The Tribunal found objective contemporaneous evidence that the Thai factory was set up primarily to avoid anti‑dumping duty so Article 33 UCC-DA applied, and that the Thai annealing produced only microscopic/sub‑structural changes insufficient to amount to a substantial last process under Article 60 UCC/Article 34 UCC-DA. The Appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof and the appeal was dismissed, leaving HMRC’s anti‑dumping duty intact.

Countrywide Partners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 357 (TC) 4 March 2026 Countrywide Partners Ltd appealed against a £1,000,000 penalty imposed by HMRC for breaching a stop notice served on 6 December 2022. The tribunal found that Countrywide’s continued operation of payroll, issuance of payslips and provision of services to existing users after the stop notice amounted to "promoting" the specified arrangements and thus breached the stop notice. The tribunal rejected the appellant’s reasonable-excuse arguments and upheld HMRC’s calculation and imposition of the maximum penalty. The appeal was dismissed.

Ponders End International Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 356 (TC) 4 March 2026 Ponders End International Ltd appealed HMRC’s requirement for a financial guarantee on an import consignment after inland examination raised doubts about origins, apportionment and commodity coding. The First-tier Tribunal held that, on the information available to the examining officer at the time, requiring a guarantee was a reasonable exercise of HMRC’s power; the post-clearance check later upheld the declared values but did not make the original decision unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed.

CooperVision Lens Care Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 324 (TC) 2 March 2026 This appeal concerned whether certain historic share acquisitions were "employment-related securities" for PAYE/NICs purposes, whether the consideration received on the 2014 sale exceeded market value, and whether HMRC’s regulation 80 PAYE determination was within time. The First, Second and Third Shares were held to be employment-related securities and the tribunal found the purchaser’s global price should be treated as market value (allocating pro rata), so HMRC’s PAYE/NICs determination was valid within the six‑year careless‑discovery period. The only successful limb for the appellant was that the Fourth Shares were not employment‑related securities.

Hector Lester v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 323 (TC) 2 March 2026 This appeal concerned whether Mr Lester validly made carry‑back claims for partnership losses for 2009/10 and 2010/11 and whether HMRC had issued decisions giving rise to an appeal. The FTT found HMRC had rejected the claims and that the tribunal had jurisdiction; entries in box 22 on the partnership pages amounted to prior carry‑forward claims under ss 83/84 ITA; and Mr Lester’s 21 February 2020 claims both operated to amend/withdraw those prior claims and were within time because ss 43(2)/43C(2) TMA extended the applicable period. The tribunal allowed the appeal and treated the carry‑back claims as validly made (the 2010/11 claim was within scope or amendment was permitted).

Brian Hughes v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 369 (TC) 28 February 2026 This appeal concerned whether Brian Hughes was the owner of, or otherwise "holding", six trailers of non-duty-paid beer seized on 14 September 2023 and so liable under Regulation 10(1). HMRC had assessed Hughes (and separately the Company) after solicitors repeatedly asserted he was the owner, but the Tribunal accepted contemporaneous evidence and Hughes's oral evidence (which recanted earlier written positions) and found he was not the owner and not holding the goods; the Regulation 10(1) assessment against him was set aside while the unappealed Regulation 10(2) assessment against the Company remains extant.

Newpier Charity Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 321 (TC) 27 February 2026 This appeal concerned whether payments made by Newpier Charity in 2017 and 2019 were repayments of a loan owed to Ambertown (and therefore not charitable expenditure) or non‑charitable expenditure for tax purposes. The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the debt had been assigned to Ambertown and that the recorded payments reduced the Ambertown creditor balance, so the payments were repayments of the loan. The appeal was allowed and the closure notices set aside to that extent.

Andrew Fender v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 319 (TC) 26 February 2026 This case concerns Mr Andrew Fender's application for permission under s 49 TMA to give late notices of appeal against HMRC Closure Notices for 2008–09 and 2010–11. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland/Denton approach (delay length; reasons for default; balancing exercise), found delays of over five and over four years were serious, and on balance refused permission to file late appeals. The decision records full reasons and confirms rights to seek permission to appeal the Tribunal's refusal.

Charge My Street Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 318 (TC) 26 February 2026 Charge My Street appealed HMRC’s treatment of its public electric vehicle charging supplies as standard‑rated VAT rather than reduced‑rate under Note 5(g) of Schedule 7A VATA. The tribunal held that Note 5(g) can, on its plain meaning, cover charging at identifiable public premises (such as car parks) and that the 1,000 kWh de minimis is measured by kWh supplied to the same person at the same premises over a calendar month. The tribunal found that where drivers pay via the Fuuse app the economic reality is that Charge My Street supplies the charging to the driver, but supplies collected by some third‑party apps may involve those apps acting as principals or agents; the appeal was allowed in principle in part, with quantification of qualifying supplies left unresolved.

NNB Generation Company (HPC) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 316 (TC) 26 February 2026 NNB sought re-categorisation of its appeal against an HMRC information notice from "standard" to "complex" and sought sequential exchange of witness statements. The First-tier Tribunal held that none of the Rule 23(4) thresholds (length/complexity of evidence or hearing; complex/important issue; large financial sum) were satisfied and refused re-categorisation; it also refused sequential exchange, keeping simultaneous exchange by 27 February 2026 subject to leave to renew with any extension application.

Pauline Luzha v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 320 (TC) 26 February 2026 This appeal concerns VAT penalty points and two £200 financial penalties under Schedule 24 FA 2021 imposed on Pauline Luzha for multiple late VAT returns. The Tribunal held the penalties were correctly issued, finding no reasonable excuse for the late submissions and that any failures were not remedied without unreasonable delay. The appeal was dismissed and the total penalties of £400 were upheld.

Universal Cycles Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 322 (TC) 26 February 2026 This interlocutory judgment concerns HMRC's late reliance on an Excel "Option 2" analysis appended to its skeleton in a s. C18 appeal about origin of imported bicycles and over £23m of duties. The Tribunal held that Option 2 amounted to a new methodology/new material that was late and unexplained, and precluded HMRC from relying on it as unfair and prejudicial to the Appellants and the trial timetable. The Tribunal provided full written reasons and noted HMRC may apply for permission to appeal.

Alan and Diane McFarland (A Partnership) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 315 (TC) 20 February 2026 The McFarland Partnership appealed HMRC's decision that supplies made to Forge Farms Livestock Ltd between 11/14–08/17 were standard-rated VAT, disputing that elements were zero‑rated feed or an exempt licence to occupy land. The First-tier Tribunal found the activities formed an indivisible composite supply of looking after cattle (feeding, housing, maintenance, animal‑health and records) and upheld HMRC's decision, dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal also rejected claims of legitimate expectation and estoppel by convention.

Alan Wood & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 265 (TC) 20 February 2026 This appeal concerned whether parts of a riverside Property — a public towpath and the riverside area separated by a low fence and wall — formed "garden or grounds" of the dwelling for SDLT s116(1)(b) purposes and whether s116(1)(c) applied. The Tribunal held the towpath was not part of the grounds because of regular public use and physical separation, but on balance the riverside was part of the grounds; s116(1)(c) did not apply. As a result the Property did not consist entirely of residential property and the appellants' mixed-use amendment succeeded.

Ian Burles the Executor of the Late Denis Richard Burles v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 314 (TC) 20 February 2026 This appeal concerned whether a purchase by the late Mr Burles of a 100‑year income interest in an offshore trust was a transfer of value for IHT. The First-tier Tribunal found s.10 IHTA did not prevent classification as a transfer of value because the purchaser intended to confer a gratuitous benefit on beneficiaries and the transaction was not at arm's length. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's IHT determination upheld.

Mochars Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 313 (TC) 20 February 2026 Mochars Ltd appealed HMRC's reduction of its VAT repayment claim for period 12/23, challenging HMRC's refusal to allow input tax on 24 transactions (total £6,128.78) for which no invoices or corroborative evidence were produced. The Tribunal found HMRC had repeatedly requested evidence, considered and lawfully exercised the discretion in regulation 29(2), and reasonably refused the 24 claims; the appeal was dismissed and HMRC's reduction to £76.00 upheld.

MSD Wholesale Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 266 (TC) 20 February 2026 MSD Wholesale Ltd appealed multiple decisions: a VAT assessment, three excise duty assessments and an AWRS refusal. The Tribunal found MSD had not proved payment of consideration for the supplies, the first and second excise duty assessments were in time and duty had not been shown to have been paid or an earlier duty point identified, MSD was the holder of seized goods for the third duty assessment, and HMRC’s AWRS refusal was not irrational. All MSD appeals were dismissed and a late adjournment application was refused.

Daniel Witton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 267 (TC) 19 February 2026 This case concerns HMRC discovery assessments for 2006/07–2010/11, a Regulation 72(5) PAYE/NIC direction and s.8 NIC decisions transferring liability to Mr Witton. The Tribunal found HMRC failed to prove the requisite subjective states (deliberate behaviour, Condition B and wilful employer failure/employee knowledge) and that key witness evidence was insufficiently tested because the central officer did not attend. As a result the discovery assessments for 2006/07–2007/08 were held time‑barred and invalid, the Regulation 72(5) direction and s.8 NIC decisions for 2008/09–2010/11 were set aside, and related penalties reduced to nil.

Global Trailer Rentals Limited v The Director of Border Revenue [2026] UKFTT 269 (TC) 19 February 2026 Global Trailer Rentals appealed a review decision by the Director of Border Revenue that had allowed restoration of a seized trailer for £1,000. The First-tier Tribunal found the review decision unreasonable because it relied on demonstrably inaccurate facts and inadequate reasoning (including misidentifying a director and the trailer type and failing to explain the fee). The Tribunal quashed the review decision (dated 6 December 2023) and ordered the Director to conduct a further review.

Malcome Oreain Robinson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 270 (TC) 19 February 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for 2007/08–2016/17 in respect of rental income from five flats at 126 Babington Road. The Tribunal found Mr Robinson had a duty to notify and had not done so, that HMRC made a lawful discovery of an insufficiency, and that the best‑judgement assessments based on Lambeth Council occupancy records, Zoopla/advertised rents adjusted by RPI and a 20% expense allowance were reasonable; the assessments were therefore upheld and not adjusted.

Paul Ellis & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 268 (TC) 17 February 2026 This case concerned appeals by Paul Ellis and NYPL against HMRC assessments, penalties and Personal Liability Notices arising from large, deliberate VAT overclaims by a group of Skelwith companies and related PAYE/NICs adjustments. The Tribunal found on the documentary record that the companies made deliberate false VAT reclaims, that Mr Ellis was a key participant who benefited and who had destroyed or failed to keep records, and that payments to Mr Ellis were earnings not loans. The Tribunal upheld HMRC's Schedule 24 penalties, PLNs, PAYE directions, discovery/closure assessments and NIC determinations; all appeals were dismissed.

Aspire in the Community Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 263 (TC) 13 February 2026 This case concerns Aspire in the Community Services Ltd (ACSL) challenging HMRC's partial refusal of input tax claimed for the VAT period 07/21, principally about how pre-registration (pre-EDR) VAT treated as input tax under reg 111 should be quantified. The Tribunal held that reg 111 permits HMRC to treat pre-registration VAT as input tax but does not provide a bespoke apportionment mechanism; quantification is governed by the ordinary input tax apportionment rules (s.25/26 and reg 101) applied in the return period when the reg 111 claim is made. The Tribunal disallowed HMRC’s approach of first depreciating pre-EDR VAT to reflect pre-registration use outside reg 101, and directed recalculation using the agreed 77% recovery rate for qualifying items not consumed before the first taxable supply and having enduring economic life. The appeal was allowed in part and the parties were directed to agree or submit updated calculations for determination.

Phoenix Food and Drink Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 264 (TC) 13 February 2026 Phoenix Food and Drink Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to grant AWRS approval on grounds linked to tax debts of a predecessor company, Lakeland, and the involvement of Phoenix’s director, Mr Geoffrey Monkman. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC’s decision was not reasonably arrived at because it failed to take into account relevant factors (including Mr Monkman’s lack of knowledge and responsibility for the predecessor’s debts, his honest conduct, and Phoenix’s tax position at the decision date) and took into account irrelevant considerations. The Tribunal set aside the refusal, ordered HMRC’s decision to cease to have effect from the decision date, and directed HMRC to review the application within 56 days addressing specified factors.

Delve Ram v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 249 (TC) 12 February 2026 This case is an application by Mr Delve Ram for permission to bring a late appeal against a company officer liability decision notice issued by HMRC. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage Martland test to an approximately 867‑day delay, accepted the appellant had health problems and that an initial notice was sent to the wrong recipient, but found no good reason for the prolonged inaction after HMRC’s clear directions in September 2022. Permission to appeal late was refused.

Ian Oscroft & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 251 (TC) 12 February 2026 This appeal concerned whether "relevant consideration" in s685(4) of the transactions‑in‑securities regime can include distributable reserves of a wholly‑owned subsidiary and whether the regime displaces ordinary time limits for assessments. The Tribunal held that subsidiary distributable reserves can count as consideration available to the parent and that the close company in s685 can be a subsidiary, but that s698(5) does not displace the ordinary TMA time limits. Because HMRC's assessments were issued out of time, the appellants' appeal succeeded.

John Milburn v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 250 (TC) 12 February 2026 This appeal concerned three discovery assessments by HMRC for HICBC (total £2,935) made 10 January 2020 and whether they were procedurally valid and subsequently "protected" by section 97 of the Finance Act 2022. The Tribunal found the appellant had posted contemporaneous "appeal" and "complaint" letters on 15 January 2020 which were likely received but misfiled by HMRC, admitted the late appeal, and held the assessments are protected because the appellant did not meet the exceptions in s97(5) or (6). The Tribunal invited HMRC to consider cancelling the assessments (and interest) under managerial discretion or ESC A19 and directed HMRC to notify the parties within 28 days.

Michael Stefan Duma & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 262 (TC) 12 February 2026 HMRC issued Notices of Requirement (NORs) in April 2023 seeking security for VAT and PAYE/NIC from Influence Network Ltd and its two directors. The First-tier Tribunal held that it has full appellate jurisdiction on PAYE/NIC NOR appeals and that NORs should be limited to securing estimated future liabilities, not pre-existing arrears; it therefore varied the company PAYE/NIC NORs to future liability figures and set aside the NORs issued to the individual directors in light of subsequent insolvency and their inability to pay. The directors' appeals against copies of the company's VAT NOR were struck out for lack of jurisdiction.

COMFG Holdings Ltd v Welsh Revenue Authority / Awdurdod Cyllid Cymru [2026] UKFTT 237 (TC) 10 February 2026 This case concerns a challenge to the Welsh Revenue Authority's Closure Notice that restored chargeable consideration for a 12 April 2022 sale to £2.75m and LTT to £142,750. The tribunal held the property was held and sold by the named trustees under a comprehensive SSAS trust deed and rules, and that the appellant's alternative case that the natural-person trustees were acting as partners had no real prospect of success. The appeal was struck out and the Closure Notice affirmed.

Anthony Outram & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 248 (TC) 6 February 2026 This appeal concerned whether HMRC proved that Anthony and Ross Outram made a "deliberate inaccuracy" in their 2005–06 self-assessment returns by claiming large trading losses arising from marketed "Pendulum" CFD arrangements. After a 3‑day rehearing the First-tier Tribunal found HMRC had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that either appellant actually knew the returns were wrong or consciously avoided confirming a firmly grounded suspicion; the appeals were allowed and HMRC's discovery assessments set aside.

Best Cosmetics Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 236 (TC) 6 February 2026 Best Cosmetics appealed two C18 post‑clearance demand notices totalling £320,251.68 for unpaid postponed import VAT after its EORI was used on 371 C88 declarations submitted by a customs agent. The tribunal admitted the late appeal but found on the facts that the C18s were correctly addressed to Best Cosmetics because its EORI was used, that neither Best Cosmetics nor the other company (UK Best) had shown they accounted for the PVA on VAT returns, and dismissed the appeal so the VAT remains due.

Genuine Care Homecare Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 235 (TC) 6 February 2026 Genuine Care Homecare Services Ltd (GCHS) appealed HMRC assessments and a failure-to-notify VAT penalty arising from GCHS's use of a Slovak supplier, Atena, to provide care staff. The First-tier Tribunal found the supplies were staff services contracted to GCHS (not exempt UK welfare supplies), that HMRC's assessments were issued within applicable time limits, and that GCHS had no reasonable excuse for late registration/notification, so the assessments and amended penalty were upheld.

Nissi N Nissi Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 234 (TC) 6 February 2026 This appeal concerned whether HMRC validly disapplied the Appellant's option to tax for 51–53 Tower Bridge Road, reversing VAT repayments totalling £606,164. The Tribunal found that Smart Start Nursery Ltd (SSN) had provided finance with the intention/expectation that the property would be used for exempt nursery services, so SSN was a "development financier" and the exempt-land test in Schedule 10 paragraph 12 was met. Consequently the supply was not taxable, the Appellant could not recover the input tax, and the assessments were upheld.

Francis Uzoh v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 231 (TC) 5 February 2026 This appeal challenged four discovery assessments issued by HMRC for tax years 2017/18, 2019/20, 2020/21 and 2021/22 arising from business travel/subsistence claims submitted via the Tommy's Tax app. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove the expense claims were allowable and that HMRC made valid discovery assessments; it also found the appellant’s reliance on an adviser amounted to carelessness. The appeal was dismissed and the assessments upheld.

Matthew Ivey v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 233 (TC) 5 February 2026 This case concerned HMRC's application to strike out Mr Ivey's appeal against a 2007 closure notice and two discovery assessments, where the appellant relied principally on loan-charge fairness and public-law complaints and challenged HMRC's use of s684(7A) ITEPA 2003 and APNs. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine direct public-law challenges to the fairness or validity of the loan charge policy or to review HMRC's exercise of s684(7A), and struck the appeal out under Rule 8(2). The Tribunal treated complaints about HMRC conduct and APNs as matters for HMRC’s complaints process or judicial review rather than the Tribunal.

Splend SPV (UK) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 232 (TC) 5 February 2026 This appeal challenged late payment penalties (LPPs) issued under Schedule 26 for unpaid VAT of £534,314.87 due 7 November 2024 and paid on 23 January 2025. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC had proven issuance and deemed service of the penalty notices, that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse (cashflow problems from delayed repayments for later periods did not excuse non-payment of the earlier liability), and that there was no basis to disturb HMRC’s refusal of a special reduction. The appeal was dismissed.

Carbon Six Engineering Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 177 (TC) 29 January 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application to set aside a barring order entered under rule 8(1) after HMRC failed to comply with an unless order requiring service of a statement of case and responses. The Tribunal refused HMRC's application, finding the breach serious and the explanations (internal handover/administration error) not good reasons to lift the bar, and exercised rule 8(8) to summarily allow Carbon Six's appeal because no statement of case had been served. Costs procedure and time limits were specified for the appellant to pursue costs.

Massala Exotic Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 175 (TC) 29 January 2026 This appeal concerned a best‑judgement VAT assessment of £280,903 for 09/13–09/19, a 63% company penalty, and a personal liability notice (PLN) served on the sole director, Mr Miah. The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s in‑time best‑judgement assessment based on merchant acquirer data and other material, rejected the company’s late hearsay evidence about third‑party card takings, and found the under‑declarations deliberate and attributable to Mr Miah. All three appeals were dismissed.

Neil Griffin v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 176 (TC) 29 January 2026 This appeal challenged a joint excise and customs civil evasion penalty imposed after 6,000 cigarettes were seized from the appellant at Heathrow. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant had acted dishonestly, applied mitigation for disclosure and co‑operation, and reduced the penalty to £2,252. The Tribunal could not take the appellant's inability to pay into account and noted it has no jurisdiction to challenge the fairness of the law.

Gentiana Zefi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 178 (TC) 28 January 2026 This appeal concerned discovery assessments and failure-to-notify penalties under the Taxes Management Act 1970 and Schedule 41 for High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) liability after Ms Zefi continued to claim Child Benefit once her income exceeded £50,000. The Tribunal remade its earlier decision, holding HMRC validly made discovery assessments in time, that Child Benefit Office (CBO) staff can be "officers of the Board" for s7 TMA purposes, but that notice under s7 must be in writing and a telephone call did not satisfy that requirement. Because Ms Zefi did not give the required written notice, had no reasonable excuse, the penalties and assessments were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Ifoem Odina v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 158 (TC) 28 January 2026 HMRC issued discovery assessments totalling £6,304 for the Higher Income Child Benefit Charge for 2019/20–2021/22. The appellant argued she did not beneficially receive declared rental income due to financial abuse and relied on a Family Court decision, but produced no valid Form 17. The First-tier Tribunal held the discovery assessments were valid and within time, treated the appellant as beneficially entitled to half the rental income in absence of a Form 17, and dismissed the appeal.

Julian & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 159 (TC) 28 January 2026 This appeal concerned a Schedule 41 penalty for failure to notify VAT registration after changes to the Agricultural Flat Rate Scheme (AFRS). The Tribunal found the appellants and their long‑standing generalist accountant were unaware of the AFRS changes, that it was objectively reasonable for them to be unaware given the manner of publication, and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty.

One Call Consultants Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 156 (TC) 26 January 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC's denial of OCC's input VAT of £314,401, imposition of s69C company penalties and a s69D officer penalty on Mr McGrail, and deregistration of OCC, arising from payments to a sequence of four "defaulter" payroll providers. The FTT found on the balance of probabilities that the purchases were connected to a VAT fraud orchestrated through sequential defaulting suppliers and that OCC and Mr McGrail knew (or should have known) of that connection. The tribunal dismissed the appeals, upheld the penalties and confirmed deregistration as proportionate.

Everill Hyre v Border Force [2026] UKFTT 132 (TC) 23 January 2026 This appeal concerned whether three imported audio items qualified for VAT and customs relief as "TV hearing aids" under Item 2(g) Group 12 Schedule 8 VATA (i.e. equipment designed solely for use by a disabled person). The Tribunal found the statutory test requires equipment designed solely for disabled persons and, reading Notice 701/7 in context, that the Notice refers to specialist amplifiers/earpieces for severe hearing defects. The Appellant conceded the equipment was of general use; the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused the refund and also dismissed the Appellant's costs application.

Jeneruhl Trade Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 157 (TC) 23 January 2026 This appeal concerned whether HMRC's VAT assessments for periods 07/19 and 10/19, notified 9 November 2021, were made within the one‑year time limit in VATA 1994 s 73(6)(b). The Tribunal held that HMRC's case officer formed an opinion that further evidence received between February and June 2021 supplied the last pieces of evidence of sufficient weight about Jeneruhl's knowledge of connections to VAT fraud, and so the assessments were within time. The Tribunal also rejected the appellants' challenge that the officer's opinion was irrational.

Matthew Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 131 (TC) 23 January 2026 This appeal concerned follower notice penalties (FNPs) assessed against Matthew Smith for tax years 2004/05–2007/08 arising from participation in a Montpelier-promoted scheme. The Tribunal held the follower notices were valid and in time and found Mr Smith did not act reasonably by failing to take corrective action before the final deadline. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal but accepted HMRC’s 2024 review reducing the total penalty to £32,541.32 (42% of the denied advantage, NICs excluded).

Richard Bucknell v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 155 (TC) 23 January 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments, closure notices and a penalty arising from undeclared dividends, an overdrawn director's loan account and a cheap loan benefit for tax years 2018/19–2021/22. The Tribunal upheld HMRC's discovery assessment and the full closure notices, increased assessments to include the High Income Child Benefit Charge where appropriate, and upheld the penalties; it rejected the appellant's late, unparticularised challenges and the claimed December 2018 share transfer. Appeals were dismissed.

Taras Ivanchuck v The Director of Border Revenue [2026] UKFTT 229 (TC) 22 January 2026 This appeal concerned Border Force’s refusal to restore a van seized at Dover as adapted for concealing goods. The Tribunal found the van was not primarily used for commercial purposes, that Border Force applied the wrong (commercial) restoration policy, and that the decision-maker had not considered evidence that refusal risked exceptional hardship to the appellant (including loss of his home). The Tribunal set aside the October 2022 decision and ordered a further review applying the private-vehicle policy and considering the appellant’s financial hardship and fresh evidence.

IPSC Recruitment Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 247 (TC) 20 January 2026 This appeal concerned HMRC Notices of Requirement for VAT and PAYE/NICs security issued to IPSC Recruitment Ltd (and two individuals) after the company, formed in October 2024, failed to pay significant VAT and PAYE/NICs and operated from the same premises and with many employees of prior defaulting IPeople companies. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC’s decisions to require security were reasonable on the information available at the time and that IPSC could be treated as a continuation/related business of the prior defaulting entities; it also found it was reasonable to treat Mr Nealon (a non‑statutory finance director with a history as a statutory director of defaults) as “purporting to act” as a director for joint and several liability. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and upheld both Notices of Requirement.

Complete Electrical Services (NW) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 128 (TC) 16 January 2026 This appeal concerned a best-judgment VAT assessment issued by HMRC (amended to £46,791) for periods 10/15–01/19 after a compliance visit; the taxpayer, Complete Electrical Services (NW) Ltd (CESNW), challenged the assessment and sought to admit substantial late documentary material. The Tribunal found HMRC's assessment was made to the best of their judgment using an appropriate methodology (representative sampling/extrapolation and arithmetically sound calculations) based on available material, excluded the late evidence, and dismissed the appeal. CESNW was given 56 days to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39.

Gregorio Napoleone v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 130 (TC) 16 January 2026 This appeal concerned Schedule 56 late payment penalties after Mr Napoleone filed a 2021/22 return showing tax of £4,276,119.43 and paid it 188 days late; penalties totalling £219,284 were imposed. The tribunal refused to admit late witness material filed shortly before the hearing, found Mr Napoleone did not have a "reasonable excuse" for late payment because his lack of funds was within his control (he had delayed securing borrowing and chose other priorities), and dismissed the appeal with the penalties upheld.

Robert Huish v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 129 (TC) 16 January 2026 This is an appeal by Mr Robert Huish against HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2017/18. The Tribunal held that, as originally enacted, TMA s.29 did not permit discovery assessments for HICBC so the assessments were invalid unless retrospectively validated by the Finance Act 2022; Mr Huish had raised the specific validity challenge by 14 April 2020 (i.e. on or before 30 June 2021) so the FA 2022 retrospective validation did not protect the assessments. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeals (HMRC had also conceded the 2015/16 assessment in any event).

The Commissioners for HMRC v Andrew O’Brien [2026] UKFTT 127 (TC) 16 January 2026 This appeal concerned a s.29 TMA 1970 discovery assessment for 2009/10 of £6,560.80 based on £33,020 of loans recorded on the Appellant’s P11D from an Edge Consulting Limited Employee Benefit Trust. The Tribunal held the loans were employment income, the taxpayer’s return did not disclose the insufficiency to a hypothetical competent HMRC officer, and HMRC’s discovery assessment and assessed amount were correct. The appeal was dismissed.

Elliot Schwarzea v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 28 (TC) 15 January 2026 This case concerns whether HMRC validly notified penalty notices to Mr Elliot Schwarzea at his last known address and whether late permission to appeal should be granted. The Tribunal found the Schedule 36 penalties were validly sent to Applewood Grove and the appellant’s appeals against those penalties were out of time, so permission for late appeal was refused. The Tribunal found the Schedule 24 penalty notices of 17 August 2018 were not validly notified because HMRC records had changed to Crantock Close before posting, so the Schedule 24 appeal was not late and permission was allowed insofar as necessary.

JP Trans URK BV v The Director of Border Revenue [2026] UKFTT 230 (TC) 15 January 2026 JP Trans URK BV appealed the Director of Border Revenue's refusal to restore a vehicle seized in July 2020 after it was found to contain large quantities of drugs. The FTT extended time to accept a late further review and held that the second review was reasonable: the officer did not rely on irrelevant material, did consider JP's criminal acquittal, and reasonably concluded JPT had failed to make adequate checks. The appeal was dismissed and the refusal to restore upheld.

Kunal Ajwani v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 126 (TC) 15 January 2026 The case concerns whether the appellant's withdrawal of a 2021 Tribunal appeal operated under s54 TMA to treat HMRC's 2021 assessments as determined against him, and whether he could bring fresh appeals in 2023 challenging the same assessments and the late payment interest. The Tribunal held the 2021 withdrawal, unrepudiated within the statutory period, meant the assessments were treated as determined against the appellant, there was no right of appeal to the Tribunal against the late payment interest in the pleaded circumstances, and the 2023 appeal was struck out for lack of jurisdiction and/or no reasonable prospect of success as an abuse/res judicata.

RSK Cars Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 122 (TC) 15 January 2026 RSK Cars Ltd appealed HMRC assessments of £90,953 plus related careless penalties, arguing it was entitled to account for VAT under the second‑hand motor car margin scheme. The First‑tier Tribunal found RSK had not complied with the statutory record‑keeping and invoice requirements (notably failure to maintain the prescribed stock book and adequate purchase/sales documentation) and so could not use the margin scheme. HMRC's assessments, based on applying the VAT fraction to gross sales and adjusted against declared VAT, were held valid and the appeal was dismissed.

Stark Building Materials (UK) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 123 (TC) 15 January 2026 Stark Building Materials sought repayment of £931,152.73 excise duty on creosote imports under s 9(4) HODA, arguing entitlement despite approval as an "approved person" being granted after the relevant imports. The Tribunal held that s 9(4) must be read in the context of s 9(1) and repayment is only available where the Commissioners would have been authorised under s 9(1) to permit duty-free delivery. Because the claimant was not an approved person at or before importation, the s 9(4) claims were dismissed.

Patrick Kearney v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 125 (TC) 14 January 2026 This appeal concerned whether Patrick Kearney was UK tax resident for 2004/05, 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2009/10, whether HMRC’s discovery assessments were valid, and whether penalties for careless inaccuracies were payable. The Tribunal concluded on the multifactorial evidence that Mr Kearney remained UK resident for the Relevant Period, that Officer Shanks validly made discovery assessments (including reasonable estimates), and that Mr Kearney was careless in his self-assessments so penalties applied but were reduced to 15% of the tax at issue. Appeals against the tax assessments were dismissed; penalty appeals were allowed only to the extent of reducing the penalty loading.

Paul Henley v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 95 (TC) 14 January 2026 Mr Henley appealed HMRC closure notices that disallowed carry-back claims for losses from Media Pro share disposals and Sovereign trading losses. The FTT held the Media Pro share-loss carry-back entered in box 15 of the 2009/10 self-assessment formed part of that return and survived HMRC's closure notice, so the repayment claim succeeds; the Sovereign trade-loss carry-back claims were stand‑alone schedule 1A/1B claims and were validly disallowed by HMRC's schedule 1A closure notice, so those claims fail.

Yourway Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 94 (TC) 14 January 2026 This case concerned whether Yourway Transport Ltd could recover import VAT paid on investigational medicinal products it imported and supplied for clinical trials. The Tribunal held that s47(1) VATA treated the Appellant as principal, so import VAT was recoverable for drugs sent from the UK to other EU Member States, but not recoverable for drugs that remained in the UK or were exported outside the EU; a public‑law legitimate‑expectation claim failed.

James Hall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 124 (TC) 13 January 2026 This case concerns Mr James Hall’s appeal against a Joint and Several Liability Notice (JSLN) issued by HMRC for £1,687,010.04 and two preliminary applications: whether HMRC should serve evidence first and whether grounds 3–5 of the appeal (including proportionality, irrationality, and alleged failure to follow guidance) should be struck out. The Tribunal held that paragraph 3 JSLNs are sufficiently punitive to engage Article 6(2) ECHR, so HMRC must prove the statutory conditions and the continued necessity of the notice, with any evidential burden shifting to the appellant only after a prima facie case is made. The Tribunal refused HMRC’s strike-out applications and ordered HMRC to serve witness evidence and skeleton argument first.

Wood Group Engineering (North Sea) Ltd v The Commissioners For HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1607 (TC) 12 January 2026 This appeal concerned whether Wood Group Engineering (North Sea) Ltd (WGENS) was a "host employer" under paragraph 9 Schedule 3 to the 1978 Regulations for 6 April 2011–5 April 2013, attracting secondary Class 1 NICs assessed by HMRC. The Tribunal held that WGOS (Guernsey) was a foreign employer whose employees’ personal service was made available to and rendered for the purposes of WGENS’ business, so WGENS was properly assessed as the host employer and the appeal was dismissed. The assessed NICs (excluding interest) were £18,134,036.

Tasca Tankers Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 97 (TC) 9 January 2026 Tasca Tankers Ltd sold high‑value used cars and claimed zero‑rating for dispatches to the Republic of Ireland. HMRC traced Tasca’s purchase chains to defaulting traders and concluded the transactions were connected to VAT fraud; the Tribunal found Tasca (via its agents) either knew or should have known of that connection and that its due diligence was inadequate. The Tribunal also held Tasca did not hold the requisite commercial evidence of removal to the RoI (PN725 requirements, including mode/route and receipted transport documentation), so zero‑rating was refused and the appeals were dismissed.

The Khan Partnership LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 43 (TC) 9 January 2026 This appeal concerns HMRC's application for costs under Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules r.10(1)(b) arising from separate hardship proceedings brought by The Khan Partnership LLP. The Tribunal held the hardship proceedings were severable from the underlying VAT appeal, found the Appellant acted unreasonably in those proceedings, and awarded HMRC summary-assessed costs of £3,151.80 for work from 22 April 2024 to 29 May 2025, dismissing recovery of pre-22 April 2024 decision-making costs. The sum must be paid within 14 days.

Victor Michael v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 96 (TC) 9 January 2026 This appeal by Victor Michael challenged HMRC closure notices disallowing most travel and other expenses for 2021/22 and 2022/23. The FTT found he worked for NHS Professionals at Southport hospital as an agency worker, that Southport was his permanent workplace because it was the sole site attended for the relevant periods, and that travel and most non-travel expenses were not deductible under ITEPA; the appeal was dismissed and the closure notices upheld.

Akin Kog v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 40 (TC) 8 January 2026 This appeal concerned a personal liability notice (PLN) issued to Mr Akin Kog for unpaid VAT on the 2016 sale of company property where the company had opted to tax but did not account for VAT. The Tribunal found insufficient direct evidence that Mr Kog actually knew of the option to tax at filing, but inferred he deliberately avoided confirming a well‑grounded suspicion ("blind‑eye" knowledge) and therefore filed a deliberately inaccurate return. The PLN was held to be properly calculated and served and the appeal was dismissed.

Gary Elden v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 41 (TC) 8 January 2026 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Mr Elden's appeal for repeated, unexplained non‑compliance with Tribunal directions and the production of inaccurate case summaries by the appellant's representative after using AI. The Tribunal found multiple breaches, concluded the AI‑derived summaries had not been properly verified and amounted to professional incompetence by any regulated person involved, but refused immediate strike‑out. Instead the Tribunal imposed strict "Will Unless" orders and detailed case‑management directions requiring verified witness statements, corrected skeleton argument material, and proof of bundle receipt on pain of automatic strike‑out.

Lawrence Rawlinson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 45 (TC) 8 January 2026 Mr Rawlinson’s employment ended under a settlement agreement which provided a £15,000 payment in lieu of notice (PILON) subject to PAYE and a separate tax-free £15,000 termination payment. The First-tier Tribunal found the PILON did not constitute earnings under s 62 ITEPA because it was agreed as part of the termination process, but also held the s 406(1)(b) disability exemption did not apply because the payment was made to discharge the employer’s notice obligation rather than being made on account of his disability. The appeal was struck out for lack of jurisdiction as premature; the Tribunal stated that, if it had jurisdiction, it would have dismissed the substantive appeal.

Malcolm Gray v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 42 (TC) 8 January 2026 This preliminary decision resolved whether Mr Gray may continue an appeal against HMRC discovery assessments after his estate was sequestrated and a trustee (Dunedin) appointed. The Tribunal held that the trustee has the right to continue the appeal and that Mr Gray may also continue the appeal (or act as agent for the trustee) because the discovery assessments were excluded from HMRC’s sequestration petition and continuation would not improperly compete with creditors. HMRC was directed to file and serve a statement of case.

Nimbus: The Disability Consultancy Service Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 38 (TC) 7 January 2026 Nimbus supplied physical Access Cards plus associated digital services and sought zero‑rating under Group 12, Item 2(g) Schedule 8 VATA 1994. HMRC treated the supplies as taxable services; the tribunal found the contractual terms gave Nimbus legal ownership but on the facts the cards were nonetheless "let on hire" and so fell within Note 5 into Item 2(g). The appeal was allowed and the supplies treated as zero‑rated as equipment designed solely for disabled persons.

PRB Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 47 (TC) 7 January 2026 PRB Trading Ltd appealed VAT assessments for periods 04/15–02/18 and related deliberate and concealed penalties; HMRC applied to strike out the appeals under Rule 8(3)(c) on grounds there was no realistic prospect of success given the appellant’s failure to serve witness evidence. The Tribunal refused the strike-out application, concluding that the matters require a full substantive hearing and that cross-examination of HMRC’s witness and detailed consideration of disclosed documents could materially affect the outcome. The Tribunal warned that the appellant’s failure to serve witness evidence seriously prejudices its case and must be remedied in preparation for the hearing listed from 3 March 2026.

Slice of Pie Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 39 (TC) 7 January 2026 Slice of Pie Ltd supplied hot, menu‑ordered cooked meals delivered to nurseries and invoiced per meal. The Tribunal held those supplies were "in the course of catering" and therefore standard‑rated for VAT, dismissing Slice of Pie's appeal. The Tribunal also reached the same conclusion applying Note 3 to Group 1 of Schedule 8.

Hardev Singh v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 46 (TC) 6 January 2026 This First-tier Tribunal considered a litigant-in-person’s summary assessment claim for costs against HMRC under Rule 10(1)(b) arising from two linked appeals. The tribunal found HMRC had acted unreasonably only by delaying obtaining Policy/Technical advice, which led to late withdrawal of its defence, but rejected the bulk of the appellant’s extensive, poorly-evidenced or disproportionate costs claim. The tribunal made a rough-and-ready summary award of £2,000 to the appellant and refused any uplift.

Supreme Imports Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 44 (TC) 5 January 2026 Supreme Imports Limited (SIL) sought permission to appeal out of time against HMRC’s refusal of a £23,476,076 VAT repayment claim treated at reduced rate; HMRC’s decision letter was received by SIL but HMRC’s agent copy to Grant Thornton (GT) was not. The Tribunal found the delay of almost eight months serious, accepted GT did not receive the agent copy, but held SIL had no good reason for not acting on the letter it did receive and that prejudice and finality outweighed SIL’s explanations, so permission to appeal out of time was refused.

Mark Curtis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1605 (TC) 22 December 2025 This case concerns whether an appellant must give HMRC written notice of appeal before notifying the First-tier Tribunal under the Taxation Management Act provisions, and whether four consolidated appeals were in time. The Tribunal held that statutory notice must be given to HMRC in writing within the time limit before notifying the Tribunal, found that a letter posted on 16 May 2023 was deemed received on 17 May 2023, struck out the two May 2023 appeals for lack of jurisdiction, and allowed the two November 2023 appeals to proceed (not treated as late).

Wood Group Engineering (North Sea) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1607 (TC) 22 December 2025 The Tribunal dismissed Wood Group Engineering (North Sea) Ltd's appeal and upheld HMRC's assessment that WGENS was a "host employer" under paragraph 9, Schedule 3, SSCER 1978 for 2011/12–2012/13, making it liable for secondary Class 1 NICs. The Tribunal found WGOS was a foreign employer whose employees’ personal service was made available to and rendered for WGENS' business, with WGENS exercising sufficient control over deployment and compliance. The HEP can apply without a legal secondment or exclusive provision of services to the host and without an apportionment mechanism where multiple potential hosts exist.

Melton Mowbray Conservative Club v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1608 (TC) 19 December 2025 This First-tier Tribunal heard HMRC’s application to strike out VAT repayment appeals by Melton Mowbray Conservative Club and found the Club had overpaid VAT and was entitled to repayment. The Tribunal held a Deed of Appointment pursuant to the Club’s trust rules and the Trustee Act vested the benefit of the VAT claims in the new trustees (including the Association of Conservative Clubs Ltd), HMRC’s strike-out application was refused, and HMRC was directed to repay the agreed sums with statutory interest to the New Trustees/Association.

Ripe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1606 (TC) 18 December 2025 Ripe Limited appealed HMRC discovery assessments and closure notices arising from amortisation claims for an acquired intangible fixed asset (a licence/right to use a client list and related data) for periods 2012–2015. The First-tier Tribunal found on the facts that Ripe had acquired an IFA, its amortisation was properly brought into account under GAAP, and HMRC had not shown careless conduct sufficient to trigger the extended six‑year assessment period; the appeal was allowed and the relevant assessments were invalidated.

AA Com Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1601 (TC) 17 December 2025 This case concerned VAT assessments and deliberate-behaviour penalties against AA Com Limited and Victory Telephone Limited for claiming input VAT on telecoms voucher cards supplied by a Hong Kong company, and the transfer of those penalties to their sole director Mr Javaid. The Tribunal found the companies acted as principals (buying and selling cards), the supplies from Easy Top World Ltd were taxable single‑purpose vouchers subject to the reverse charge, HMRC reasonably refused to accept alternative evidence in place of valid VAT invoices, and upheld the assessments and penalties, transferring penalties to Mr Javaid. The companies’ appeals were dismissed; Mr Javaid’s challenge to transfer of penalties also failed.

East Midlands Waste Management Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1603 (TC) 17 December 2025 This case concerned whether three late appeals (two VAT penalties and one VAT assessment) should be admitted out of time. The Tribunal applied the statutory three-stage late-admission test and, despite significant delays (ranging up to 273 days), admitted all three appeals because of collaborative correspondence between HMRC and the taxpayer’s advisers, a reasonable explanation for delays including a change of adviser, and proportionality given modest delay for one decision. The Tribunal recorded that HMRC’s conduct did not warrant criticism and directed admission of the appeals.

Stuart Moore v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1599 (TC) 17 December 2025 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Mr Stuart Moore's appeal against a decision that he should have been VAT-registered for 1 Oct 2020–31 Jan 2021 and an associated assessment of £31,945.58. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints about HMRC's internal processes or officers' conduct and found the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success because the appellant accepted he exceeded the VAT threshold and no VAT return had been made to challenge the estimate. HMRC's strike-out application was granted and the appeal was struck out.

D Nuttall UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1600 (TC) 16 December 2025 This appeal concerned whether VAT on fuel and repairs & maintenance for trucks was supplied to D Nuttall UK Ltd or to the trucks' owner, ROBO, which affected entitlement to input tax credits totaling £284,599.64. Although the written contracts named ROBO as provider of transport services, the Tribunal found that economic and commercial reality showed ROBO merely made trucks available while the Appellant controlled, directed, paid for and benefited from the disputed supplies. The Tribunal therefore held the supplies were made to the Appellant and allowed its appeals, granting the claimed VAT input tax credits.

Littlewoods Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1602 (TC) 16 December 2025 This appeal concerned whether input VAT on product-specific photography and modelling costs was exclusively attributable to taxable retail supplies or also to exempt finance/insurance supplies. The Tribunal applied a component-by-component "direct and immediate link" test and found the Photographs were produced and used solely to display individual products to facilitate retail sales, not to depict or promote finance/insurance. The Tribunal allowed Littlewoods' appeal and permitted recovery of the contested input tax (one claim stayed).

Mumtaz Hussain v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1598 (TC) 16 December 2025 This appeal concerned a Schedule 36 information notice served on Mumtaz Hussain seeking documents about cash business takings and financing of UK property purchases. The Tribunal found HMRC had reasonable grounds to suspect under-assessment for the years covered (except 2014/15) and varied the Notice by excluding Items 6 and 7 and by removing 2004/05 material from Items 9–11, otherwise directing compliance with the amended Notice. HMRC failed to show the requested material was reasonably necessary in respect of 2004/05.

Truth Recruitment Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1604 (TC) 16 December 2025 This appeal concerned a s73 VAT assessment by HMRC denying most of Truth Recruitment Limited's input tax claim for July 2022; the Tribunal found the appellant's supplies of carers to three care homes were not exempt under s31/Group 7 Part 2 Schedule 9 VATA and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held the carers were not on the professional registers in Item 1 and their services were not wholly performed or directly supervised by registered persons, and it rejected the appellant's procedural and fairness challenges. Quantum was not in dispute and the assessment was held to have been validly issued.

Andrew Charles Ferguson & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 238 (TC) 15 December 2025 This appeal concerned whether a 0.4‑acre paddock contiguous with Marden Grange formed part of the residential grounds for SDLT when the property was sold on 5 October 2022. The First‑tier Tribunal found the paddock was part of the dwelling’s grounds despite long‑standing commercial grazing by third parties and a personal, terminable licence. HMRC’s amendment (treating the land as residential and applying Table A rates) was upheld and the Fergusons’ appeal was dismissed.

Rao Mohammed Hassan Khan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1553 (TC) 12 December 2025 This appeal concerned whether invoiced but unpaid rent must be included in "profits arising in the tax year" for 2016‑17 and 2017‑18 where property profits are calculated under GAAP (accruals basis). The Tribunal held that, for GAAP‑based property businesses, "profits arising in the tax year" means profits accruing in that year, so accrued but unpaid rent is included under s 27 ITTOIA, and the appellant's original returns were not excessive. The appellant's Schedule 1AB claims and credit note issued in 2020 did not alter the earlier years' tax position; the appeal was dismissed and HMRC's closure notices confirmed.

G.M.P. Baird Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1540 (TC) 11 December 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC’s denial of input VAT and s.69C/69D penalties against G.M.P. Baird Ltd and its directors for purchases traced to VAT losses in scrap supply chains. The tribunal examined whether the appellants knew or should have known that the purchases were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion, considering actual, blind‑eye and objective trader tests and the appellants’ due diligence. It concluded HMRC had not proved actual or blind‑eye knowledge, nor that the appellants had the means of knowing that the only reasonable explanation was fraud, and allowed the appeals. Permission to appeal may be sought within 56 days.

Jonathan Batten v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1538 (TC) 11 December 2025 This appeal concerns Mr Jonathan Batten's applications for permission to bring late appeals against HMRC amendments to Fairway Construction's partnership returns for 2015–16 and 2016–17 and a discovery assessment (with penalty) for 2019–20. The Tribunal found Mr Batten had a good reason for delay in respect of the 2015–16 and 2016–17 partnership amendments because HMRC correspondence reasonably led him to believe he had no right of appeal, but had no good reason for delay as to the 2019–20 assessment. Balancing connectedness of the factual issues and prejudice, the Tribunal nonetheless granted permission to appeal all three matters and gave directions for disclosure and case timetabling.

Natural Balance Foods Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1555 (TC) 11 December 2025 This VAT appeal concerns whether Trek Protein Flapjacks were correctly reclassified by HMRC as standard-rated confectionery and the parties' dispute over disclosure. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to disclose documents about its July 2023 amendment to Manual VFOOD6200 (Category 1) as potentially necessary to the Appellant's pleaded legitimate expectation/public law arguments, but refused a wider disclosure of materials relating to HMRC's decision-making and third-party evidence (Category 2) as unnecessary and disproportionate. The Appellant may renew a narrowed request later; usual appeal rights apply.

Push Investment Group Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1534 (TC) 11 December 2025 Push Investment Group Ltd appealed HMRC assessments charging anti-dumping duty, countervailing duty, import VAT and a penalty after a consignment of solar panels was released into free circulation with an Export Undertaking Certificate (EUC) that had expired 13 days earlier. The tribunal held that Article 3(1) of the ADD Regulation requires the EUC to be valid at the time the customs declaration for release into free circulation is accepted, so the expired EUC did not qualify for the exemption. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s C18 demand and penalty were upheld; parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

Richard Thomas v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1537 (TC) 11 December 2025 This appeal concerned whether an income tax repayment (c.£1,065.43) relating to the 2020/21 tax year formed part of the late Mrs Eunice Thomas's estate for inheritance tax purposes. The First-tier Tribunal held that, on these facts, the right to that repayment was a chose in action whose amount was calculable at the date of death and that s171 IHTA 1984 operated so the estate was entitled to the refund; the HMRC determination treating the repayment as estate property was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Story Terrace Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1554 (TC) 11 December 2025 This appeal concerned whether Story Terrace's bespoke service producing four-colour hardback books (with digital copies) was a zero-rated supply of "books" or a standard-rated supply of ghost-writing services. The Tribunal found the contract and final outputs were books and, applying the predominance test from the viewpoint of the typical consumer, the provision of the physical book was the predominant element. The appeal was allowed and the supplies were held to be zero-rated.

The Commissioners for HMRC v PNO Group Limited (in liquidation) [2025] UKFTT 1539 (TC) 11 December 2025 HMRC applied for a promoter disclosure penalty under DOTAS against PNO Group Ltd (in liquidation) for failing to notify notifiable arrangements. The Tribunal held the PNO arrangements were notifiable under Regulation 10, that PNO was a promoter, and that it failed to notify from 1 September 2017 until 14 January 2021. The Tribunal imposed an enhanced penalty of £1,000,000.

WM Morrison Supermarkets Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1542 (TC) 11 December 2025 Morrisons appealed VAT assessments for sales of cool-down rotisserie chickens (CDRCs). The First-tier Tribunal held that CDRCs were excluded from zero-rating because, while not heated for the purpose of enabling consumption hot, they were kept hot after heating and supplied in packaging that retained heat / was designed for hot food (Note 3B(c) and (d)), dismissed Morrisons' legitimate-expectation challenge, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also held it had jurisdiction to consider the legitimate-expectation/public-law ground.

4Site Services London Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1504 (TC) 9 December 2025 4Site appealed HMRC's denial of input VAT under Kittel and an associated s69 VATA penalty; the First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals. The Tribunal held HMRC's 2 Sept 2021 Kittel denial was a separate alternate assessment for 06/20 (not merely an amendment) and had jurisdiction to decide it. On the facts the Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that CMUS and GCorp had fraudulently evaded VAT, that 4Site's purchases were connected to that evasion, and that 4Site should have known (including by turning a blind eye); the assessed input tax of £268,032 and the penalty of £80,409.60 were upheld.

Anandpreet Powar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1536 (TC) 9 December 2025 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Mr Powar's appeal against a personal liability notice (PLN) under rule 8(3)(c) on the ground that his amended grounds had no realistic prospect of success. The Tribunal relied on prior factual findings in a 17 May 2024 VAT decision (that Mr Powar knew or more likely than not knew of transactions connected to fraudulent VAT evasion), found the PLN correctly calculated under Schedule 41, and allowed HMRC’s strike-out application, concluding Mr Powar is liable to pay the PLN.

Spring Capital Limited v The Commissioners for his Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 1509 (TC) 9 December 2025 This case concerns whether a statement in paragraph 252 of Judge Brannan’s 2015 Decision—that he "would have accepted Mr Taub's valuation of goodwill at £6,390,000"—was an obiter remark or a binding finding, and whether the Valuation Issue therefore must be treated as res judicata. The Tribunal held that the statement was obiter, not an essential part of the 2015 Decision, so it is not binding and the Valuation Issue remains live; directions for further expert evidence were issued and proceedings were sisted pending resolution of related Court of Session proceedings.

The Commissioners for HMRC v WS Vision Ltd [2025] UKFTT 1535 (TC) 9 December 2025 The First-tier Tribunal found that WS Vision Ltd (in liquidation) promoted notifiable DOTAS arrangements that split remuneration into a low taxable salary and larger loan payments designed to avoid PAYE/NICs, and that WSV failed to notify HMRC of those arrangements from 1 November 2017 until 14 January 2021. The Tribunal held WSV was a promoter (including receipt of a percentage fee), had no reasonable excuse for non-compliance, and imposed a penalty of £1,000,000. The liquidator's disclosure on 15 January 2021 ended the period of non-compliance.

Allan Jack v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1502 (TC) 4 December 2025 This case concerns Mr Allan Jack's appeal against an HMRC closure notice for 2010/11 that treated amounts transferred by his employer to an Isle of Man employee benefit trust (EBT) as employment income. The tribunal held the closure notice charged tax under the employment earnings provisions, not the loan charge, and found the loan charge regime and later repayment did not negate the 2010/11 tax charge. The appeal was dismissed and the closure notice upheld in full.

Athena Luxe Limited v The Commissioners for his Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 1507 (TC) 4 December 2025 Athena Luxe Ltd appealed HMRC’s partial refusal of input VAT claims for 07/23–09/23 relating mainly to Harrods and Louis Vuitton purchases. The Tribunal found the Harrods invoice, read with the matching till receipt, satisfied reg 14(1)(g) and was a valid VAT invoice, and held HMRC acted unreasonably in refusing to exercise its reg 29 discretion in respect of the Louis Vuitton invoices without making further enquiries. The appeal was allowed in part and the disallowance was quashed to the extent described.

Claire Blenkin v The Commissioners for his Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 1508 (TC) 4 December 2025 This appeal concerned discovery assessments for 2018/19 and 2019/20 and related complaints by the appellant about HMRC's handling of other taxpayers, a data breach, and interest/another tax year. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to decide complaints about HMRC's treatment of other taxpayers or the data-breach complaint and found the two discovery assessments were protected, correctly quantified and timely issued. Interest and the 2020/21 self-assessment were not appealable to the Tribunal. The appeal was dismissed.

Joseph Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1505 (TC) 4 December 2025 Mr Joseph Smith, a US Department of Defense postmaster stationed at RAF Menwith Hill and a member of a visiting force, sought SDLT relief under s.74 after buying a private home; HMRC refused a refund and applied to strike out his appeal. The First-tier Tribunal, following the earlier Halstead decision and applying judicial comity, held that s.74 relief does not extend to individual members of visiting forces and struck out the appeal as having no reasonable prospect of success.

M&C Educational Training Services Ltd v The Commissioners for his Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2025] UKFTT 1506 (TC) 4 December 2025 M&C claimed R&D tax relief for metallurgy vocational courses delivered by blended e‑learning, webinars and workshops, but HMRC disallowed the claims and the tribunal dismissed the appeal. The central issue was whether the activities sought an advance in overall scientific or technological knowledge or capability as required by the BEIS Guidelines and the statutory R&D regime. The tribunal found the courses novel in delivery and valuable to industry but concluded they were advances in education/training rather than advances in the field of metallurgy and therefore did not qualify as R&D. The closure notices were upheld.

Jeyalingam Balasingam v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1541 (TC) 2 December 2025 This case concerns Mr Balasingam’s late appeal against a personal liability notice relating to VAT penalties imposed on Sprowston Food and Wine Ltd. The First-tier Tribunal rejected HMRC’s strike-out res judicata/abuse‑of‑process challenge, holding that an earlier VAT decision did not finally determine the statutory requirements for a distinct personal liability notice, but refused permission to extend time for the appeal filed some 4.5 years late, so the appeal cannot proceed.

Juno Sourcing Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1447 (TC) 1 December 2025 This appeal concerned a post-clearance customs demand (C18) of £1,373,884.73 against Juno Sourcing Ltd for 52 PPE consignments imported in 2020 and a refusal of remission. The Tribunal held that disaster‑relief relief under the Commission Decision (Article 1c) required the goods actually to have ended up with an Approved Organisation and that Juno had not proved that on the balance of probabilities; it also found the remission claim confined to Category 3 consignments and rejected Articles 118 and 120 UCC grounds. Both appeals were dismissed and the C18 and remission refusal were upheld.

Terence Murphy & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1503 (TC) 1 December 2025 The appeals concern trusts that used a round‑the‑world scheme to avoid UK capital gains tax by briefly appointing New Zealand trustees before sales, and whether HMRC made valid discovery assessments and whether treaty relief under article 14(4)/s788 applied. The tribunal held HMRC did not make a valid s29 discovery assessment for DH, found that the appellants had made valid claims for treaty relief (or HMRC were estopped from denying they had), but on treaty interpretation applied article 4(3)'s tie‑breaker and a POEM analysis and concluded the trusts' POEM was in the UK so article 14(4) did not exempt the appellants from UK CGT. Murphys’ appeals were dismissed in principle; DH’s appeal was allowed in principle on discovery grounds.

Steven Hall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1446 (TC) 28 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether HMRC were entitled to register Mr Hall for VAT for 1 December 2011 to 25 August 2022 after a July 2021 compliance check, and whether a 21 August 2023 HMRC letter had closed a related income tax self‑assessment (SA) enquiry. The Tribunal found the 21 August 2023 letter amounted to a closure notice informing Mr Hall no amendment to the SA was required, that the SA was therefore closed without adjustment, and that HMRC’s VAT registration decision was incorrect because it conflicted with the closed income tax position. The appeal was allowed and the VAT registration decision set aside for the period in question; the Tribunal did not decide whether the stylist’s receipts formed part of Mr Hall’s VAT turnover.

Zulal Dinler v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1445 (TC) 28 November 2025 This appeal challenged civil evasion penalties of £6,430 imposed after 14,000 cigarettes were found in the appellant’s luggage on arrival from Turkey. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant knew the cigarettes exceeded the allowance, intended to evade duty, and acted dishonestly, and it refused to reduce the penalty for lack of cooperation. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

Intech Ventures Limited (in liquidation) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1444 (TC) 26 November 2025 This preliminary Tribunal decision concerned late appeals by Intech Ventures Ltd (in liquidation) and its sole former director, Mr Michael Stefan Duma, against HMRC Notices of Requirement to give security for PAYE and NICs. The Tribunal found the Notices were served (on the civil standard), the 30-day appeal period ran from HMRC's "View of the Matter" letters, and the appeals (filed 214 days late) were thus out of time. The Tribunal waived a procedural Rule 20 defect but, applying the Martland/Denton balancing exercise, refused permission to admit the appeals out of time. Costs from an earlier barring application were reserved for separate written determination.

Nicholas Rowe v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1443 (TC) 26 November 2025 This case concerns whether an annex at Deer Park House qualified as a separate "dwelling" so that the purchaser, Mr Rowe, could claim Multiple Dwellings Relief for Stamp Duty Land Tax. Applying the multifactorial Fiander test to the annex's physical attributes, separate services and lockable interconnecting doors, the tribunal found the annex had been previously used as separate accommodation and was suitable for use as a single dwelling. The appeal was allowed and MDR granted.

County Insurance Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1440 (TC) 24 November 2025 County Insurance Services Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to allow corporation tax deductions for amortisation of goodwill acquired on its 2013 incorporation, arguing the goodwill was created after 1 April 2002. The Tribunal considered whether the partnership’s pre-2002 business had ceased and been replaced by a new trade (notably after changes around 2006–07). It found the changes were an organic evolution rather than a cessation, so the business had been carried on before 1 April 2002 and the goodwill was treated as created before that date. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s contested assessments upheld (subject to the conceded/undisputed periods).

Georgios Kamperis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1441 (TC) 24 November 2025 This appeal challenged follower‑notice penalties under s208 FA 2014 issued after the Huitson decision; the Tribunal found the notices valid and that Mr Kamperis did not perform the statutory two‑step corrective action (amend or settle and notify) by the specified time. Payment of APNs or reliance on the Montpelier promoters did not amount to corrective action, and it was not reasonable in all the circumstances for him to refrain from corrective action. The appeal was dismissed and penalties confirmed, reduced to the reviewed total of £39,153.22 under s50(6) TMA.

Letter Workshop Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1403 (TC) 24 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether Letter Workshop Ltd correctly calculated employees’ reference salaries for CJRS claims and whether HMRC’s assessments were valid and in time. The First Direction governed calculation: fixed-rate employees’ reference pay is taken from the latest pay period ending on or before the CJRS day (19 March 2020) and variable-rate employees are subject to the look‑back/averaging rules; RTI filings and amounts payable as at that day are material. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, reduced the original assessments under its s.50(6) TMA powers, and upheld the remainder.

Nicholas Dounetas v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1416 (TC) 24 November 2025 This case concerns an application for permission to appeal out of time against a 19 December 2023 HMRC closure notice that treated income as PAYE/IR35, increasing tax liability. The Tribunal applied the three-stage test for late appeals, found the delay (five-plus months to appeal to HMRC and further delay to the Tribunal) serious with no good reason shown, and found the substantive merits did not carry significant weight because the engager had treated the appellant as a deemed employee and deducted PAYE/NI. Permission to appeal late was refused.

Places for People Homes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1417 (TC) 24 November 2025 This interim decision concerns whether maintenance trust companies (MTCs) providing services in relation to 25 blocks of flats made taxable supplies to the lessors or exempt supplies of land to the lessees, whether supplies by different suppliers can be fused into a single exempt supply, and whether MTC staff costs are disbursements outside VAT. The Tribunal found on the facts that the MTCs supplied the lessors (not the lessees), that supplies by separate suppliers cannot be fused with the lessors' exempt land supply (so MTC supplies are taxable), and that MTC staff costs are not disbursements. The appeal is stayed on one outstanding EU law point pending an Upper Tribunal decision.

Raj Sehgal v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1439 (TC) 24 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether a separately leased, titled storage unit acquired with a residential flat formed part of the dwelling for SDLT purposes or was a separate non‑residential interest. The First‑tier Tribunal held it had jurisdiction, found the storage unit was a separate transaction (and in any event not appurtenant or "subsisting for the benefit" of the flat), and concluded the storage unit was not residential property so non‑residential (Table B) rates apply. The appeal was allowed and HMRC's closure notice refusing refund was overturned.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Michael Breen [2025] UKFTT 1415 (TC) 24 November 2025 HMRC applied for costs against Mr Breen under Rule 10(1)(b) after his appeal was struck out for persistent non‑compliance with tribunal directions; the appeal concerned assessments of £942,131.68. The Tribunal found Mr Breen’s prolonged failures to comply were unreasonable, admitted but gave no weight to late medical imaging and refused an adjournment, and awarded HMRC the costs claimed.

The Executor of The Estate of Paul Goudman-Peachey v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1402 (TC) 24 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether the January 2019 purchase of Woodmancote Place and c.150 acres was entirely residential for SDLT or mixed‑use. The Tribunal found the main house and immediate gardens were residential but substantial adjacent land was in separate non‑residential use (deer park, sheep grazing, arable use, and a long‑term ROWL easement), so the transaction was mixed‑use. HMRC’s closure notice treating the whole acquisition as residential was overturned and non‑residential/mixed‑use (Table B) SDLT rates apply.

Daniel Cotton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1398 (TC) 20 November 2025 Mr Daniel Cotton received three SEISS payments totaling £8,352 and filed a 2019/20 self‑assessment showing employment as a seafarer with a Seafarers Earnings Deduction and no self‑employment pages. HMRC issued a paragraph 9 Schedule 16 assessment in April 2022 seeking repayment on the basis he was not entitled to SEISS; the First-tier Tribunal found the assessment valid, in time and for the correct amount and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held Mr Cotton did not prove he carried on a trade in 2019/20 and the return’s employment information was decisive in the absence of satisfactory contrary evidence.

Express Brands Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1400 (TC) 20 November 2025 Express Brands challenged HMRC's refusal to repay £176,404 of VAT claimed by error correction notifications as being made outside the four‑year time limit in s.80(4) VATA 1994. The First‑tier Tribunal held the claims for the periods 06/14, 03/15 and 03/16–06/19 were time‑barred and dismissed the appeal; a later claim for 09/19 was allowed and not in issue. The tribunal decided the statutory four‑year bar is mandatory and that neither regulation 35 of the VAT Regulations nor the Limitation Act 1980 displaces that bar.

Lonsdale Property Development Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1397 (TC) 20 November 2025 Lonsdale Property Development Ltd appealed HMRC Notices of Requirement (NoRs) for VAT and CIS security issued after a history of late and missed payments; HMRC reviewed and reduced the sums but maintained that security remained necessary. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding HMRC's decision to require security was reasonable and necessary to protect the Revenue and that the review officer had properly considered payment of arrears. The Tribunal confirmed HMRC may return security earlier than the nominal 24 months if the assessed risk subsides.

Reno Elektro Sp zoo v Director of Border Revenue [2025] UKFTT 1399 (TC) 20 November 2025 Reno Elektro appealed Border Force’s refusal to restore a refrigerated trailer seized at Dover as adapted to conceal goods; no concealed goods were found and Reno claimed to be an innocent purchaser. The First-tier Tribunal refused to strike out the appeal, found it more likely than not that Reno was an innocent purchaser, and held that the review decision (5 March 2024) was not one a reasonable officer could have reached because an irrelevant suspicion of Reno’s awareness was relied on and relevant alternatives for removing the adaptation were not considered. The Tribunal set aside that review decision and directed Border Force to conduct a further review on specified terms.

UPW Invest Inc v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1401 (TC) 20 November 2025 This appeal concerned UPW Invest Inc's challenge to Schedule 55 late-filing penalties for ATED returns for charge years 2017–2023. The Tribunal found HMRC proved the appellant was in default, rejected the appellant's arguments of reasonable excuse (including the director's illness and lack of awareness) and special circumstances, and dismissed the appeal with penalties upheld.

Milton Park Holdings Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1353 (TC) 14 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether MPHL acquired a business such that purchased goodwill could be recognised in its accounts and thereby give rise to corporation tax deductions; HMRC had disallowed goodwill amortisation and related group relief. The Tribunal found that although MPHL obtained control of the net assets, it did not acquire control of the operations or retain the risks and rewards of the care‑home business (which passed to MCP), so MPHL was not entitled to recognise purchased goodwill. The appeals were dismissed and HMRC’s closure‑notice treatment stands.

Conqueror Trading Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1335 (TC) 11 November 2025 Four UK trading companies appealed HMRC post‑clearance demands for customs duty and import VAT after HMRC queried undervaluation and denied onward supply relief (OSR). The Tribunal found HMRC had reasonable doubts about the declared transaction values, the appellants failed to discharge evidential burdens on valuation and OSR, and HMRC lawfully applied a Method 6 valuation fallback. The appeals were dismissed and HMRC’s assessments upheld.

Constantinos Kyriaides v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1334 (TC) 10 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether proceedings challenging HMRC assessments and penalties for deductions claimed via a "Self-Employed Remuneration Trust" for 2017/18–2021/22 should be stayed pending (1) the Further Independent Review (FIR) of the Loan Charge and (2) the final determination in Marlborough. The Tribunal granted a short, proportionate stay pending the FIR because the review was likely to materially affect resolution and the delay was limited, but refused a stay pending Marlborough as that decision was not likely to be of material assistance. Directions were given for possible amendment of grounds and case progression; the Appellant may apply for permission to appeal.

John Earl Dreyer v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1336 (TC) 10 November 2025 This case concerns Mr John Earl Dreyer’s late appeal against a VATA s 61 civil evasion penalty; the Tribunal considered (1) a constitutional challenge that the 30‑day appeal limit was displaced by Article 6 ECHR or the Bill of Rights 1689, (2) whether Mr Dreyer had validly notified HMRC accepting a review within time, and (3) whether permission to appeal late should be granted. The Tribunal rejected the constitutional challenge, found no effective timely review request was received, and refused permission to bring the appeal late; the penalty therefore stands and HMRC may claim costs.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Moir Management Services Limited [2025] UKFTT 1333 (TC) 10 November 2025 This case concerned HMRC's penalties against Moir Management Services Ltd for failing to notify "notifiable arrangements" and for failing to respond to a pre-disclosure enquiry relating to a Jarvis International Annuity umbrella payment model. The FTT found Moir was a promoter of notifiable arrangements, breached FA 2004 ss.308 and 313A, had no reasonable excuse, and imposed total penalties of £1,596,800. The decision applied Regulations 8, 10 and 18 and sets out the factual and statutory basis for promoter status and penalty calculation.

1st Alternative Medical Staffing Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1320 (TC) 7 November 2025 This appeal concerned whether 1st Alternative Medical Staffing Ltd's supply of nurses and care assistants was VAT-exempt under Item 4, Group 7, Schedule 9 VATA as "closely related" to medical care. The Tribunal found the appellant did not satisfy Note 8's "state regulated" requirement (no statutory licence/registration during the Relevant Period) and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC's revised VAT assessments. The Tribunal also gave a subsidiary view that, even if Note 8 had been met, the supplies resembled commercial agency provision and would not appropriately attract the exemption.

Cascade Care Limited v The Commissioners For HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1332 (TC) 7 November 2025 Cascade Care supplied residential and supported living services in England and Wales and claimed those supplies were exempt from VAT under item 9, Group 7, Schedule 9 VATA 1994. Note 8's prescriptive definition of "Act" omitted the National Assembly for Wales/Senedd; the Tribunal found that omission was an inadvertent drafting error and read into Note 8 an item covering Acts/Measures of the National Assembly for Wales, so that Cascade's Welsh supplies fall within the item 9 exemption. The appeal was dismissed.

Gerrit Wals v The Commissioners For HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1331 (TC) 7 November 2025 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 late‑filing penalties totalling £4,500 imposed on Gerrit Wals for multiple tax years. The tribunal found Wals had a reasonable excuse only for the £100 penalty for 2010/11 because he reasonably relied on his chartered accountant; for the later years he was on notice of agent failures and did not take reasonable care, so those penalties were upheld. No special circumstances warranted reduction of the remaining penalties. The appeal was allowed only in respect of the 2010/11 penalty.

TSI Instruments Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1278 (TC) 29 October 2025 TSI Instruments Ltd imported customers' goods into the UK for repair, paid import VAT and claimed it as input tax although it never became owner of the goods. The Tribunal held that, under Article 168(e) PVD and domestic VATA read consistently, the right to deduct import VAT requires that the cost/value of the imported goods be reflected in the taxpayer's taxable outputs (or that the importer effectively has the goods as owner). TSI's claims were rejected because it did not own the goods and the value of the goods was not incorporated into TSI's repair charges. The appeal was dismissed except that assessments were reduced to the parties' agreed figure of £8,432,896.86.

Uber London Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1282 (TC) 28 October 2025 This case concerns HMRC's application to continue an unconditional stay of Uber London Limited's 2023 VAT appeal while the related Bolt litigation is finally determined and whether Uber should have its £1.446 billion deposited sums returned or the stay made conditional on repayment. The First-tier Tribunal continued the stay until 35 days after final determination of the Bolt Appeal (and related appeals), rejected Uber's request for repayment or conditional stay, and accepted that simple interest would be an appropriate remedy if repayment is later required.

John Boulting v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1272 (TC) 24 October 2025 This appeal concerned whether PSC’s purchase of eight B shares from Mr Boulting satisfied Condition A of s1033 CTA 2020 — namely whether the purchase was made wholly or mainly for the purpose of benefiting the company’s trade. The Tribunal preferred the respondent MB’s evidence, found the purchase was undertaken to secure Mr Boulting’s exit and enable necessary investment, rejected HMRC’s focus on the payment amount as determinative, and allowed the appeal on the basis that Condition A was met.

Scott Joseph Studio Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1262 (TC) 24 October 2025 Scott Joseph Studio Ltd appealed HMRC assessments denying input tax (~£62,511.66). HMRC applied under Rule 8(3)(c) to strike out parts of the appeal for lack of a realistic prospect on grounds of personal use, zero‑rated/exempt items, and absence of VAT invoices/alternative evidence; the Tribunal granted the application in part and struck out identified sums. The Tribunal also held that Regulation 111 does not itself impose a time limit on HMRC’s power to assess.

Shoeb Choudhury v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1274 (TC) 24 October 2025 This case concerns an application for permission to bring a 523‑day late appeal against a Director penalty decision upholding a £127,806.30 penalty. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage test for late permission, rejected the appellant’s reliance on accountants as a good reason for delay because there was no evidence they actively misled him and he failed to take minimal checks, and found the delay serious and significant. Balancing prejudice to HMRC, finality, and the absence of strong merits, the Tribunal refused permission to appeal out of time. The decision records the right to apply for permission to appeal this refusal under Rule 39 within 56 days.

Figa Store Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1260 (TC) 23 October 2025 Figa Store applied for permission to bring a 17‑day-late appeal against a C18 demand; the Tribunal found the short delay not serious, accepted the appellant’s explanations, and allowed the late appeal. The Tribunal also held that omission of documents referred to in FTT Rule 20(3) did not automatically make the NOA invalid and would, in any event, exercise its discretion under Rule 7 to remedy or waive that single defect so the appeal could proceed.

Najat Hamasala v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1261 (TC) 23 October 2025 This appeal concerns Mr Najat Hamasala’s application for permission to bring late appeals: (1) to admit and determine a late appeal against a 5 June 2017 closure notice and discovery assessments, and (2) to give late notice of appeals to HMRC against late‑filing penalties totaling £3,955. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage Martland/Denton approach, found very lengthy delays (several years to almost seven years) and that the reasons given (unawareness of the Tribunal, time spent in the Republic of Ireland, reliance on an accountant) were inadequate. The application was dismissed and permission to pursue the late appeals was refused.

Dr Andrew Power v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1552 (TC) 21 October 2025 Dr Andrew Power appealed penalties issued by HMRC for late Self Assessment filing and late payment. The Tribunal refused permission for five late appeals and rejected the remaining appeals on their merits, finding that any reasonable excuse had ceased by at least 11 April 2024 and that failures were not remedied without unreasonable delay; HMRC’s refusal to make a special reduction was not flawed. All appeals were dismissed.

Five Star (Development) Homes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1255 (TC) 21 October 2025 This appeal concerned late VAT returns and associated penalty points and fixed penalties under Schedule 24 FA 2021, where Five Star blamed a trainee and ANNA software for 17 late returns and delayed repayments. The Tribunal found HMRC’s records showed valid issue and service of notices, and that the appellant failed to prove a reasonable excuse or special circumstances on the balance of probabilities. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties upheld.

James Marshall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1256 (TC) 21 October 2025 This appeal concerned a £300 penalty imposed under Schedule 36 for failure to comply with an HMRC information notice dated 14 November 2023. The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant James Marshall's absence, accepted a slightly late appeal, found the notice validly served at his last known address despite being addressed also to a trading style/other names, and rejected Mr Marshall's claim that returning unopened mail was a reasonable excuse. The penalty was upheld.

Eurocent (Buckingham) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1253 (TC) 17 October 2025 This appeal concerned whether Eurocent could reclaim input VAT on two supplier invoices for its purchase of Cornwall Place and whether HMRC could deny input tax despite invoices meeting the formal invoice requirements. The Tribunal held that the BHNV invoice met Regulation 14(1) and the VAT reclaim for that invoice was allowed, but the Colridge invoice did not meet Regulation 14(1) and that element of the claim was disallowed; HMRC’s wider output tax assessment was conceded and removed.

Len Lothian Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1254 (TC) 17 October 2025 Len Lothian Holdings was assessed for excise duty and a penalty after tobacco was found in a self‑storage unit; HMRC treated Len Lothian as "holding" and "concerned in keeping" the goods. The Tribunal found the unit was effectively controlled and accessed by a third party known as "Kami", the signed licence was absent or void, and Len Lothian did not have possession or control of the goods. The assessment and penalty were cancelled. Parties may apply for permission to appeal.

SM Development North West Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1252 (TC) 17 October 2025 This is an appeal by SM Development North West Ltd against HMRC's refusal to allow input tax reclaimed in its 09/22 VAT return. The Tribunal found most purchases predated the company's effective date of registration and the appellant did not prove goods remained unconsumed at registration; the invoices produced did not comply with Regulation 14(1) and the alternative evidence did not adequately link VAT to paid qualifying supplies. HMRC was therefore entitled to refuse to accept the alternative evidence under Regulation 29(2) and the appeal was dismissed.

DDK Projects Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1251 (TC) 16 October 2025 DDK Projects Ltd missed a VAT payment of £629,251.95 due 7 March 2024 and paid 32 days late after receiving HMRC's notice, attracting penalties of £25,307.98. The First-tier Tribunal accepted DDK's evidence that a combination of the director's unexpected full‑time caregiving after a traumatic birth, the outsourced bookkeeper's sudden compassionate leave, and HMRC's delayed letter together amounted to a "reasonable excuse" until the company received HMRC's notice; DDK paid the same day and the appeal was allowed. Penalties were therefore set aside.

Oriental Bu Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1273 (TC) 16 October 2025 Oriental Bu Trading Ltd appealed HMRC decisions reducing input tax and issuing s.73 assessments; during the hearing HMRC withdrew the contested decision and assessments and credited the disallowed input tax. The First-tier Tribunal held that HMRC's withdrawal removed the appealable matter so it lacked jurisdiction to determine the substantive appeals and struck them out. The Tribunal nonetheless retained jurisdiction to hear consequential applications such as costs or other ancillary matters.

Sanjay Ahya v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1232 (TC) 16 October 2025 This case concerns Mr Sanjay Ahya’s application for permission to appeal out of time against HMRC discovery assessments and penalties for 2005/06–2022/23 totaling £75,055.12. The First-tier Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland approach, found delays of 26 and 23 days (measured by date of receipt of Mr Ahya’s letter), rejected his inconsistent and largely unsupported explanations for delay, and concluded the substantive case was not obviously strong. Balancing the factors, the Tribunal refused permission to appeal out of time. The decision records the right to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Telamara Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1123 (TC) 16 October 2025 Telamara Ltd supplied 8g nitrous oxide (N2O) "cream chargers" and argued they were "food of a kind used for human consumption" for VAT zero‑rating under Item 1 Group 1 Schedule 8 VATA. The tribunal found, on the evidence and expert material, that the N2O in those chargers is not food and that the supplies are correctly standard‑rated, dismissing the appeal. The tribunal upheld HMRC's assessments.

Tyler Security Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1250 (TC) 16 October 2025 This Tribunal considered whether dog-handlers supplied by Tyler Security to end-clients for 2017–18 fell within the Agency legislation (ss 44–47 ITEPA) so that payments to handlers were taxable as earnings. The Tribunal found handlers personally provided services, that the manner of provision was subject to supervision, direction and control by the agency and/or clients, and upheld HMRC’s reg 80 determination (varied to £88,503.70). The appeal was dismissed.

Butlers Ship Stores Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1227 (TC) 10 October 2025 This appeal concerned a claim for drawback of excise duty following a 2014 assessment and HMRC's application to strike out and resist disclosure. The Tribunal held s16(3) Finance Act 1994 can apply to drawback decisions and that BSS had no reasonable prospect of proving it was an "eligible claimant" because it lacked evidence that the exports occurred in the course of its business, so the appeal was struck out. The Tribunal refused most other strike-out grounds and said limited disclosure from BSS's customers (not HMRC internal notes) would have been appropriate had the appeal proceeded.

Patrick Brown v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1226 (TC) 10 October 2025 This appeal challenged a closure notice assessing £43,899 as additional employment income arising from payments by offshore employer AML to an offshore trust. The First-tier Tribunal found those payments were remuneration redirected by arrangement or acquiescence and taxable when paid to the trust, rejected the fair-trial objection (no shown prejudice from delay), and struck out the appeal as having no realistic prospect of success under Rule 8(3)(c). The tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to review HMRC's choice to tax the employee rather than the employer.

SK Metals Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1211 (TC) 10 October 2025 This First-tier Tribunal allowed appeals by SK Metals Ltd and its sole director Spencer Feldman against HMRC decisions denying input VAT, imposing a s69C VATA penalty, and issuing a s69D officer liability notice. The Tribunal found HMRC had not proved SK Metals knew or ought to have known its purchases from B Trade Ltd were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion (the Kittel test), and therefore set aside the input tax denials and the related penalty and officer‑liability notice. The Tribunal preferred contemporaneous documentary and corroborated oral evidence and found SK Metals' explanations and due diligence, while imperfect, did not make fraud the only reasonable explanation.

Lands Luo Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1207 (TC) 9 October 2025 Lands Luo Ltd sought permission for a late appeal against HMRC's 13 October 2023 VAT decision disallowing input tax; the Tribunal found an 8 November 2023 email was only a request for an extension and that a purported 9 November 2023 handwritten letter was not shown, on the balance of probabilities, to have been posted in time. Applying the three-stage test (length of delay; reasons for delay; all the circumstances) and the stricter approach, the Tribunal recognised the delay as serious but granted permission to appeal out of time after balancing the circumstances, noting HMRC subsequently made substantive repayments.

Universal Cycles Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1208 (TC) 9 October 2025 This decision concerns preliminary questions in consolidated appeals by Universal Cycles Ltd and others against HMRC C18 demand notes for alleged unpaid import duties on c.1,300 bicycle consignments (2007–2012). The Tribunal ruled that where HMRC rely on Article 221(4) (tolling/extended notification following acts giving rise to criminal proceedings) to permit late notification, HMRC bear the legal burden to prove entitlement to rely on that Article for each relevant declaration. The Tribunal also held it can determine that a different appellant was the declarant/debtor for particular importations, but such a finding does not relieve HMRC of the statutory account-entry and formal notification requirements needed to create enforceable liability.

Dialog Semiconductor Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1188 (TC) 3 October 2025 Dialog challenged HMRC's closure notice treating a USD 137.3m termination fee paid under a 2015 Merger Agreement as a capital receipt under s 22(1)(c) TCGA 1992. The Tribunal held, on the preliminary issue, that the fee did not arise from forfeiture, surrender or refraining by Dialog and therefore did not fall within s 22(1)(c); the fee was compensatory and the break clause operated to terminate rather than constitute a surrender. The appeal was allowed on that preliminary point and the closure notice will be withdrawn if this decision is final.

John Crooks v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1148 (TC) 30 September 2025 The appellant sought an order requiring HMRC to disclose particulars and documents about alleged discounted 2015 EBT settlements offered to large companies, arguing comparators should have been offered to users of a Self‑Employed Remuneration Trust. The Tribunal refused the 8 July 2025 application as the requested third‑party settlement information was not sufficiently relevant or proportionate to the issues before it, the application was premature while HMRC had not filed a statement of case, and the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to direct or review HMRC's settlement terms to third parties. The refusal preserved the parties' ability to pursue ADR and recorded the appellant's right to seek permission to appeal.

Wolf & Whistle Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1187 (TC) 30 September 2025 Wolf & Whistle Limited sought permission to bring late appeals against an HMRC overclaim assessment and related penalties arising from an EOTHO compliance check. The First-tier Tribunal applied the Denton/Hysaj three-stage test and found the delays (mostly 6–18 months) were serious, that HMRC had sent correspondence to WWL's recorded address, and that WWL had not shown a good reason for the delay. Permission to appeal late was refused.

GW Martin & Co Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1147 (TC) 25 September 2025 This appeal concerned whether cash payments to employees, structured as subscriptions for partly‑paid shares, were taxable as employment "earnings" and subject to NICs. The Tribunal found the scheme was designed to avoid PAYE/NICs, the uncalled 99% liability was a contingent, commercially irrelevant obligation that was not enforced, and the payments were in substance remuneration. Both appeals were dismissed and HMRC's Regulation 80 determinations and NICs decisions were upheld.

Kinross Estate Company v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1146 (TC) 25 September 2025 Kinross Estate Company applied for permission to bring a late appeal against a 2019 closure notice decision; the Tribunal found the proposed challenge really sought to deny that the company had included a house disposal on its return rather than to challenge any HMRC amendment required by the closure notice. The appeal was held to fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Schedule 18 and to be plainly doomed, and permission to appeal late was refused.

WM Morrison Supermarket Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1145 (TC) 22 September 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC’s post‑clearance demand for anti‑dumping duty on household aluminium foil imported from Thailand, focusing on whether the Thai processing was economically justified or principally intended to avoid anti‑dumping duties, and if the final annealing in Thailand amounted to the last substantial processing conferring origin. The Tribunal found contemporaneous company material showed the Thai factory was set up mainly to avoid the anti‑dumping rate and that the Thai annealing produced only microscopic/sub‑structural changes (temper H18→0) insufficient to constitute the required substantial processing. The appeal by WM Morrison was dismissed.

Ashley Matthews T/A Coast & Country v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1124 (TC) 19 September 2025 This appeal concerned an estate agency that failed to be registered under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 and was penalised by HMRC for trading while unregistered between 15 October 2022 and 24 November 2023. The Tribunal found the appellant had contravened the Regulations, had not taken all reasonable steps or exercised due diligence (including failing to follow HMRC guidance to check the Gateway), and upheld HMRC’s penalty as properly calculated and proportionate; the appeal was dismissed.

Complete Solutions Europe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1116 (TC) 19 September 2025 Complete Solutions Europe Ltd appealed four HMRC income tax assessments arising from CJRS claims for six workers. The Tribunal held five spa engineers were not "fixed rate employees" and that, for variably paid employees, the averaging method includes remuneration relating to the period up to the day before furlough (even if paid later), so two duplicate assessments were reduced to nil and the remaining assessments must be recalculated to include pay earned up to 22 March 2020. The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain complaints about HMRC conduct or legitimate-expectation public law claims.

Parvaiz Akhtar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1122 (TC) 19 September 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC best‑judgement VAT assessments totalling £29,199.19 for periods 12/19–03/23 against Mr Akhtar, who operated an off‑licence and had incomplete till/journal records. The Tribunal found HMRC acted "to the best of their judgment" using available till z‑readings and representative periods and that Mr Akhtar failed to discharge the burden of proof to show the assessed quantum was incorrect. The assessments were therefore upheld in full.

Burton Skip Hire Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1113 (TC) 17 September 2025 Burton appealed a landfill tax assessment and applied to debar HMRC from relying on several documents that HMRC had not included on its List of Documents but exhibited to witness statements. The Tribunal held HMRC had breached case management Directions by not obtaining a direction before relying on those documents, but admitted the disputed exhibits (MT3–MT7, JR1, JR5, JR6) because they were relevant, the matter was at an early procedural stage, and Burton would be given an opportunity to respond. Burton’s debarment application was dismissed and HMRC’s cross-application to admit the documents was allowed; the proceedings were stayed for 28 days for further case management proposals.

Isle of Wight NHS Trust v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1114 (TC) 16 September 2025 This appeal challenged HMRC's decision that locum supplies to Isle of Wight NHS Trust were not exempt under Item 5 (Group 7, Sch 9 VATA). The Tribunal held that Item 5, read in its ordinary meaning and statutory context, exempts the provision of a deputy who is a person registered in the register of medical practitioners and that two sample supplies (Dr BK and Dr SDR) were such deputies; the Trust's appeal on those transactions was allowed and VAT was found to have been incorrectly charged. Procedural evidence rulings excluded certain hearsay witness statements and non-public internal policy material.

Jade Lambert v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1115 (TC) 16 September 2025 This appeal challenged a personal liability notice (PLN) issued to Ms Lambert as sole director of FLUK; the Tribunal granted HMRC’s application to strike out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) and proceeded in her absence after finding she had been notified. Grounds 1–3 were struck out as an abuse of process because they sought to re‑litigate issues already finally determined in FLUK’s earlier tribunal decision; Grounds 4–5 were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success on the material before the Tribunal. The appeal is struck out in its entirety, subject to Ms Lambert’s right to apply within 28 days to set aside the in‑absence decision and seek reinstatement and/or amendment of grounds.

Jumpman Gaming Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1117 (TC) 16 September 2025 This appeal concerned whether Jumpman Gaming’s “Mega Reel” free spin promotion gave rise to remote gaming duty (RGD) liabilities and whether HMRC’s 21 May 2024 letter rendered one assessment time-barred. The Tribunal held the MR Spin was a free game (not a waived payment) so s.159(4) did not apply, but Free Spins won from MR Spins were gaming payments for RGD and not excluded by s.159A; the 21 May letter reduced rather than withdrew/reissued Assessment 3, so the assessments stood subject to agreed reductions for RGD already accounted for. The appeal was dismissed.

Kevin Isted v The Information Commissioner [2025] UKFTT 1102 (TC) 15 September 2025 This appeal challenged the ICO’s Decision Notice that Tonbridge & Malling Borough Council had complied with a FOIA request for information about parking at Common Road/Blue Bell Hill and did not hold further responsive information. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the Council’s digital searches (emails, shared drives, network storage across relevant teams) were reasonable and sufficient, and that councillors’ material in their capacity as elected members was not information “held” by the Council for FOIA purposes. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the ICO.

Dapetz Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1096 (TC) 12 September 2025 Dapetz Limited appealed three income tax assessments issued by HMRC for overclaimed Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme payments; the First-tier Tribunal found HMRC's revised calculations were correct, reduced the assessed total to £177,401.27 under its TMA powers, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal held the company's original CJRS claims were incorrect because reference salaries must be determined from RTI data on or before the relevant CJRS day and the assessments were competent and timely. The Tribunal also ruled it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's wider non-statutory or equitable complaints about HMRC conduct.

Scott Brothers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1206 (TC) 12 September 2025 This case concerns Scott Brothers Limited's application to reinstate a landfill tax appeal it had orally withdrawn during a multi‑day hearing. The tribunal applied Rules 2 and 17 and refused reinstatement, principally because permitting the appellant's expert (LP) to reopen or alter important evidence would cause substantial and unfair prejudice to HMRC; the tribunal also doubted the reliability of the managing director's (Mr Borthwick's) explanations for withdrawal. The decision dismisses the reinstatement application and notes parties may seek permission to appeal under Rule 39.

City Blinds Scotland Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1100 (TC) 11 September 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments that City Blinds had overclaimed under the CJRS; after ADR HMRC recalculated entitlement and issued a post‑ADR assessment of £12,073.51 which the Tribunal confirmed. The key issues were the lawfulness of HMRC's calculation method (including converting annual/reference pay to a daily rate by dividing by 7), whether underclaims in other periods could be offset against overclaims, and whether public‑law arguments could be entertained. The Tribunal held HMRC's methodology and officer belief met the required tests, refused cross‑period offsetting, amended the assessment to the post‑ADR figure and dismissed the appeal.

FieldworkHub Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1097 (TC) 11 September 2025 FieldworkHub Ltd appealed an HMRC Regulation 80 Determination that it had failed to deduct PAYE from an employee (Ms S) for 2021/22 because previous employment pay/tax figures were not included in its payroll calculations. The Tribunal found the PAYE Regulations did not oblige the employer to include other-employment figures in its deductions working sheets absent a P45 or HMRC-supplied first-code figures, allowed the appeal and reduced the Determination to nil.

Ian Smicle-Thompson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1063 (TC) 11 September 2025 This case concerns Mr Ian Smicle-Thompson's application for permission to bring an appeal out of time against HMRC discovery assessments for HICBC for 2015–16 to 2017–18. The First-tier Tribunal applied the three-stage Denton/Martland approach and found a delay of about 3 years 8 months, that the reasons advanced did not amount to a sufficient reasonable excuse nor were acted on promptly, and that the substantive case was weak with prejudice to HMRC. The Tribunal also found Mr Smicle‑Thompson had not raised the Wilkes point before 30 June 2021 and so s97 FA 2022 protections did not apply. Permission to bring the late appeal was refused.

Patricia Mbomi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1099 (TC) 8 September 2025 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 penalties imposed on Ms Mbomi for late self‑assessment returns for 2016/17 and 2017/18. The tribunal found it more likely than not that statutory notices and reminders were received, that the appellant did not establish a reasonable excuse (including that reliance on an agent was not reasonable care), and that there were no special circumstances to reduce penalties. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties upheld.

Ketan Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1098 (TC) 5 September 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC closure notices and discovery assessments for tax years 2009–2019 based on bank analyses and third‑party information showing significant deposits (notably from BTB). The Tribunal found Officer Jones’ discovery belief reasonable, held Mr Patel at least careless, accepted HMRC’s use of estimations and the presumption of continuity, and rejected Mr Patel’s attempts to characterise receipts as loans, reimbursements or employment income. The 2009 assessment was reduced to nil by agreement and the remaining revised assessments were upheld.

Majestic Global FZ-LLC v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1061 (TC) 4 September 2025 Majestic challenged HMRC decisions that imposed conditions on CMBC's warehouse, beer registration and AWRS approvals which prevented supplies to Majestic. The First-tier Tribunal held those decisions were made in relation to CMBC's approvals and not in relation to or imposed on Majestic, and therefore Majestic lacked standing under s 16(2A)(b) and (c) FA. The tribunal struck out Majestic's appeals for want of jurisdiction.

Remiglio di Lellio v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1071 (TC) 4 September 2025 This case concerns Mr Remiglio di Lellio's applications for permission to bring multiple appeals out of time against HMRC discovery assessments, closure notices, inaccuracy penalties and two personal liability notices (PLNs). The Tribunal found delays of six to seven years and refused permission to appeal late, concluding Mr Di Lellio's reliance on his accountant was not a sufficient "good reason" given HMRC's clear correspondence that no appeals had been lodged and that the substantive case was weak on the evidence. The Tribunal did not determine whether the PLNs remain payable after HMRC withdrew related company assessments.

MBP Europe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1069 (TC) 3 September 2025 This appeal concerned a Schedule 26 VAT late payment penalty assessed after HMRC asserted it had posted a Payments on Account (POA) letter and the taxpayer’s Direct Debit had been cancelled. The tribunal found that, although HMRC’s records showed the POA letter was posted, the appellant credibly established non‑receipt through reliable internal post procedures, discovered the missed Direct Debit on 18 November 2024 and paid the VAT the same day. The tribunal held those facts amounted to a reasonable excuse and allowed the appeal, discharging the penalty.

CFL Fuels Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1068 (TC) 2 September 2025 CFL Fuels appealed HMRC's refusal to restore 12,000 litres of fuel and a tanker seized in April 2022 after laboratory samples suggested laundered UK gas oil. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC's restoration decision unreasonable because HMRC had not clearly identified the legal basis for forfeiture, had treated assumptions about laundering as established facts, and had not properly considered CFL's innocent contamination/duty-paid and hardship arguments. The Tribunal quashed the decision and ordered a further HMRC review clarifying the legal basis, permitting further analysis and evidence, and giving CFL an opportunity to respond. The restoration decision was directed to cease to have effect immediately pending that review.

Michelle Jacqueline Berrell & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1067 (TC) 2 September 2025 This appeal concerned whether Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) for SDLT applied to a December 2021 purchase comprising a three-bedroom main house with an attached single-storey annexe. The First-tier Tribunal applied the Fiander multi‑factorial test as at completion and found, treating the rear hallway as communal, that the main house and annexe were each suitable for use as single dwellings. The Tribunal allowed the Appellants' appeal and held the purchase fell within Schedule 6B, entitling them to MDR.

United Wholesale Grocers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1066 (TC) 2 September 2025 This appeal concerns HMRC assessments for unpaid excise duty and penalties against United Wholesale Grocers Ltd (UWG) for 2012–13 and UWG’s request that HMRC search for and disclose documents bearing on whether an earlier duty point occurred. The Tribunal granted a tailored disclosure order directing HMRC to search and disclose documents (beyond standard Rule 27 lists) that support UWG’s case or are adverse to HMRC, and to provide a CPR-style disclosure statement and specified documents by set deadlines. The order was limited in scope and time and replaced earlier case-management directions.

Gentiana Zafi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1072 (TC) 28 August 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge and related failure-to-notify penalties. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellant had given oral notice to HMRC's Child Benefit Office on 18 February 2018 which satisfied TMA s.7 for 2017/18 (and, by presumption of continuity, for 2018/19) but not for 2016/17; assessments for 2016/17 and 2017/18 were time-barred and disallowed, while the 2018/19 assessment was upheld; penalties were disallowed as out of time or unnecessary. Permission to appeal is available under Rule 39.

Paul Collingwood v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1065 (TC) 28 August 2025 This appeal concerned whether sponsorship and ambassador payments were taxable on Paul Collingwood personally or on his wholly owned company, PDC Rights Ltd, and whether he had a legitimate expectation that HMRC would not amend earlier tax treatment. The Tribunal found the Assignment Agreement only transferred intellectual property rights and did not divest Collingwood of entitlement to payments under contracts that named and were signed by him, so the sums were his taxable income (dismissal under s 5 ITTOIA, alternatively s 687). The Tribunal also rejected the legitimate expectation/public law limb and drew adverse weight from the appellant’s failure to call relevant witnesses.

Sean McMahon v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1064 (TC) 28 August 2025 This appeal concerns the appellant's Rule 8 application to bar HMRC from defending discovery assessments for 2008/09 and 2009/10 on the ground delay has so prejudiced him that he cannot have a fair trial. The tribunal found HMRC have a realistic prospect of establishing valid, in-time discovery assessments and refused to bar HMRC; the appeal will proceed to a full hearing, with directions about pleading any fair-trial ground and timing for HMRC’s statement of case.

Uab Migoresta v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1062 (TC) 28 August 2025 This appeal concerned an excise duty assessment of £235,936 following seizure of 760,220 cigarettes found concealed in a Migoresta-owned vehicle at Dover on 2 August 2020. The Tribunal allowed a late appeal but held Migoresta was the person holding the goods at the excise point and so liable under the relevant excise regulations, and dismissed the appeal against the assessment. HMRC had withdrawn the penalty claim before the hearing.

VP Evans (as executrix of HB Evans, deceased) & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1112 (TC) 22 August 2025 This interlocutory Tribunal decision concerns appellants' consolidated disclosure application in eleven appeals against HMRC Closure Notices raising CGT issues from offshore trust planning and related preliminary issues. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to undertake a further reasonable search and to disclose specified documents in Categories 1–4 (with limits) by 30 October 2025, but refused disclosure of internal/state-to-state material (Category 5) as not sufficiently relevant and confidential. Directions other than disclosure were stayed pending completion of that disclosure; HMRC must explain any documents no longer held. Permission to apply for appeal is preserved.

Deos Group.Co.Uk Limited v The Commissioners For HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1018 (TC) 21 August 2025 Deos Group appealed HMRC assessments denying input VAT of £1,299,083.69 (from 18 purchases) and a related penalty, conceded the purchases were connected to a VAT loss caused by fraud but disputed that Deos knew or should have known of that connection. The First-tier Tribunal found Deos (and its managing director Mr Smith) neither actually knew nor objectively should have known the purchases were connected with fraud, allowing the appeals and dismissing the penalty. The Tribunal accepted Deos had taken steps (pausing purchases, checking VAT status, contacting HMRC) that rebutted an inference of knowledge.

Lexgreen Services Limited v The Commissioners For HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1019 (TC) 21 August 2025 This appeal considered whether s 201(1)(d) IHTA, which makes a settlor liable for certain trust charges where a transfer is made "during the life of the settlor", can apply where the settlor is a company and, if so, whether Lexgreen was liable for a ten‑year anniversary charge. The Tribunal held that "during the life of the settlor" can be read to mean "during the period of existence" when the settlor is a corporate body, and that Lexgreen was a live company at the relevant times. Accordingly Lexgreen was liable for the agreed ten‑year charge and the appeal was dismissed.

Moses Mukuna v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1020 (TC) 21 August 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments (2016/17–2018/19), closure notices (2019/20–2021/22) and a Schedule 24 penalty for deliberate inaccuracies arising from large expense claims by Mr Mukuna. The First-tier Tribunal found Officer Bennett made a valid discovery under s29(5) TMA, the closure notices were valid, and the appellant failed to prove he had been overcharged because contemporaneous documentary evidence was lacking or inconsistent. The tribunal also found the appellant’s conduct was deliberate, so the penalty was properly imposed and no special reduction was justified, and the appeals were dismissed.

Colchester Institute Corporation v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1017 (TC) 19 August 2025 This appeal concerned whether statutory/formula-based EFA/SFA funding paid to Colchester Institute Corporation (CIC) amounted to "consideration" for supplies of education, and related VAT assessments arising from CIC's property project and Lennartz adjustments. The First-tier Tribunal held itself bound by an earlier Upper Tribunal decision on the Consideration Point and allowed CIC's appeal on that point, but the appeal was only allowed in part because CIC had abandoned its input-tax challenges and the related assessments are no longer in issue.

William Andrew Tinkler v The Commissioners For HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1016 (TC) 19 August 2025 This appeal concerned whether HMRC could advance (and the Tribunal decide) statutory and valuation arguments not expressly named in closure notices amending Mr Tinkler’s returns for his combined horse-breeding-and-racing business. The Tribunal treated the scope of the closure notices as a preliminary issue, held that HMRC may run its Section 66 (restriction on loss relief) argument for all years except 2013–14 and may rely on the GAAP/stock valuation issue for all years (including 2013–14), and gave permission for the appellant to amend grounds and issued directions for further case management.

Ferrero UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1202 (TC) 18 August 2025 Ferrero challenged HMRC's decision that its "Nutella biscuits" were standard-rated on the basis they were "biscuits... partly covered with chocolate or some product similar in taste and appearance" in Schedule 8 Group 1 Excepted Item 2 VATA. The First-tier Tribunal applied an ordinary‑language/contextual test focusing on the finished product's outer surface as perceived by an informed consumer and held that the biscuits were not partly covered because the chocolate‑like ring and filling sit beneath the baked outer surface and do not form part of that surface. HMRC's assessments were therefore not supported on that basis; permission to appeal was noted as available.

City of Portsmouth College v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1015 (TC) 15 August 2025 City of Portsmouth College appealed HMRC VAT assessments arguing that grants from the EFA/SFA/ESFA were not "consideration" for supplies of education or vocational training to students. The First-tier Tribunal, bound by an Upper Tribunal decision on the "Consideration Point", held for the College on that issue and allowed the appeals in part; one assessment for 04/16 had been withdrawn by HMRC and that part of the appeal was struck out.

Brian David Webb v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 987 (TC) 14 August 2025 Mr Webb, a long‑time VAT-registered builder who ceased paid building work in 1995 and dealt in multiple properties, claimed input tax and a repayment for periods up to 02/21. HMRC denied the 02/21 repayment, assessed VAT for 08/18–11/20, imposed penalties and deregistered him from 28 Feb 2021. The First‑tier Tribunal found he was not carrying on an economic activity for VAT purposes, the property supplies were exempt under Schedule 9 Group 1 item 1 VATA, and therefore upheld deregistration, denied the repayment, confirmed the assessments and sustained penalties (with a 91% quality‑of‑disclosure reduction applied).

Craig William Burley v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 989 (TC) 14 August 2025 This appeal concerned whether Mr Craig William Burley validly assigned his rights to income from two film partnerships to an LLP and, in any event, whether he remained the person "receiving or entitled to" the partnership profits for income tax purposes. The First-tier Tribunal found that, on a realistic appraisal of commercial substance (not merely the LLP accounts or the Minute), Mr Burley remained entitled to the partnership profits for the periods in issue and dismissed his appeal, upholding HMRC’s closure notices. The Tribunal also doubted the Minute effected an equitable assignment and held that, if it did, it could not operate before it was executed.

Parkside Nail Supplies Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 988 (TC) 14 August 2025 Parkside appealed HMRC assessments denying CJRS claims for employee Hai Thanh Tran on the basis that PAYE earnings had not been reported in an RTI submission by the relevant date (19 March 2020). The First-tier Tribunal struck out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) as having no reasonable prospect of success, holding the absence of RTI reporting by that date was determinative of ineligibility and could not be displaced by arguments about technical failure, fairness or the scheme’s “spirit.”

Smart H&S Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1070 (TC) 14 August 2025 Smart H&S Ltd appealed an HMRC assessment alleging overclaimed CJRS grants for its two director‑employees. The Tribunal found the correct reference salary for CJRS was the pay reported to HMRC by the relevant reference date (RTI/19 March 2020, circa £719), not later increased salaries, and dismissed Smart's appeal. The decision records a 56‑day right to seek permission to appeal.

Inside Track 3 LLP & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 986 (TC) 12 August 2025 This appeal concerned whether a prior First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision had already resolved that the LLPs' acquired Rights were "intangible fixed assets" for the purposes of Part 8 CTA 2009. The Tribunal held the earlier FTT decision was unambiguous and had explicitly determined the Rights were fixed intangible assets, so the Scope of Decision Issue was decided in the LLPs' favour. The Tribunal declined to admit a late authority from HMRC and said it was not appropriate to look beyond the clear wording of the earlier decision to determine what was decided.

Cornwall College v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 969 (TC) 11 August 2025 Cornwall College, a VAT-registered further education corporation, appealed HMRC output VAT assessments arising from adjustments for 2014/15 and 2015/16. The central issue was whether EFA/SFA grants paid under non‑negotiable national funding arrangements and allocation with claw‑back amounted to "consideration" for supplies of education or vocational training. The First-tier Tribunal held it was bound by the Upper Tribunal decision in Colchester Institute v HMRC and therefore found the grants were not consideration; the appeal was allowed and the assessed output tax was not due. Parties may apply for permission to appeal within 56 days.

Derby College Group v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 968 (TC) 11 August 2025 Derby College Group appealed HMRC VAT assessments arguing that statutory, formula-driven grants from the EFA/SFA/ESFA were not "consideration" for supplies of education or vocational training provided free to students. The First-tier Tribunal, bound by the Upper Tribunal's decision in Colchester Institute v HMRC on the agreed "Consideration Point", held that those grants did not constitute consideration and allowed the College's appeal. The parties may seek permission to appeal further.

Trevor John Masters v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 967 (TC) 11 August 2025 Mr Masters appealed HMRC's refusal to grant treaty relief on large withdrawals from his UK SIPP after moving to Portugal as an NHR. The Tribunal held those withdrawals were "paid in consideration of past employment" within Article 17 of the UK‑Portugal Double Taxation Convention, so taxation rights were allocated to Portugal and HMRC's closure notices were disallowed. The Tribunal also (obiter) considered Article 20 and said "subject to tax" requires actual/effective taxation in the residence state.

Darren Locke v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 956 (TC) 7 August 2025 This appeal concerned penalties imposed by HMRC under Schedule 41 FA 2008 for Mr Locke’s failure to notify chargeability to income tax for 2020/21 and 2021/22 in respect of rental income. The Tribunal found Mr Locke had a statutory obligation to notify, that his failures were deliberate but not concealed, and that HMRC’s penalty calculations and the reductions applied were appropriate. The appeal was dismissed.

DP Langan Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 958 (TC) 7 August 2025 DP Langan Ltd appealed HMRC assessments that disallowed parts of its Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) claims for two fixed‑rate employees whose pay was increased after 19 March 2020. The Tribunal held the employees' reference salaries were the amounts payable in the latest pay period ending on or before 19 March 2020, paragraph 7.12 did not allow using later pay rises to increase reference pay, and the appeal was dismissed with the assessments upheld as amended (including small additional employer NICs and claim percentage corrections).

Global Consultax Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 957 (TC) 7 August 2025 This appeal concerned recovery by HMRC of Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) Support Payments claimed by Global Consultax Ltd for eight employees where no Real Time Information (RTI) returns had been submitted in the qualifying period. The First-tier Tribunal found no qualifying RTI submissions for those employees, so the Appellant was not entitled to the Support Payments; HMRC's paragraph 9 assessments were valid and in time, and were amended to a total of £51,875. The appeal against penalty assessments was allowed because HMRC abandoned the penalties.

Jeremy Town v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1210 (TC) 6 August 2025 Mr Town bought a property comprising Springwood House, Springwood Cottage and a Summerhouse and claimed Multiple Dwellings Relief (SDLT). HMRC treated the purchase as two dwellings, not three, and issued a closure notice requiring repayment; the Tribunal held the Summerhouse was not "used or suitable for use as a single dwelling" on the effective date and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal emphasised the Summerhouse’s small size, lack of shower/bath and limited storage meant it lacked the self‑sufficiency and settled permanence required. HMRC’s position that there were two dwellings was upheld.

Motorplus Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 931 (TC) 4 August 2025 Motorplus appealed HMRC's denial of input tax recovery for supplies from two suppliers; HMRC had refused the ECN on the basis that "no VAT had been charged" and no VAT invoices were issued. The FTT held those denial letters did not expressly decide whether the supplies were taxable or exempt, but because HMRC's self-standing finding that no VAT had been charged was material to the correctness of the decision (payments were VAT‑inclusive), the Tribunal had jurisdiction under s.83(c) VATA to determine chargeability. HMRC's strike-out application under Rule 8(3)(c) was dismissed and further case management directions were ordered.

Parwinder Gill v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 930 (TC) 4 August 2025 This case concerns Mr Parwinder Gill's appeal against a HMRC Personal Liability Notice of £1,825,818.08 which had been struck out for non‑compliance with tribunal directions after his retained representative, T M Sterling Ltd (TMS), failed to respond. The tribunal allowed a late reinstatement application, finding it was in the interests of justice to extend time because TMS remained on the record, had not passed on key directions/Unless Order, gave no explanation for its failures, and Mr Gill's serious medical condition meant it was reasonable for him not to monitor his representative. The PLN appeal was reinstated and will proceed under further directions.

Ian Milhill v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 919 (TC) 31 July 2025 This case concerns whether HMRC's closure notices, a discovery assessment and multiple penalties for tax years 2014–19 were duly notified to Mr Milhill and whether the Tribunal should grant permission for late appeals. The Tribunal found the decisions were notified (either directly to Mr Milhill or via his agent) and refused permission to admit late appeals because the delays were serious, no good reason was shown, and reliance on agents did not excuse the delay. The HMRC decisions therefore stand and enforcement may resume.

ICL Europe Cooperatief UA v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 917 (TC) 31 July 2025 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Ground 1 of ICL's appeal, which challenges HMRC's refusal to issue or authenticate a C79 (or equivalent) for import VAT recovery relating to ICL's April 2017 import. The First‑tier Tribunal held it has jurisdiction under s.83(1)(c) VATA to hear Ground 1 to the extent it challenges HMRC's conduct in issuing/authenticating the document required by reg 29(2)(c) as affecting input tax recovery. HMRC's strike‑out application was refused and the Tribunal did not decide the substantive merits.

John Jones Civil Engineering and Groundworks Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 918 (TC) 31 July 2025 This appeal concerned a s.50A Landfill Tax assessment of £547,042.50 (plus interest) relating to 410 loads of material deposited at Bage Farm in 2014, and whether the deposits were taxable “qualifying material”, whether HMRC properly exercised its discretion in issuing the assessment, and whether the taxpayer had a reasonable excuse (including invasion by Australian swamp stonecrop) for not removing the material. The Tribunal found the deposits contained non‑qualifying waste (metal, plastic, rubble), preferred photographic and consultant evidence to parts of the appellant’s account, found the landowner had requested the infill, concluded HMRC had exercised its discretion at senior review levels and had not acted unreasonably, and dismissed the appeal while allowing credit for the £15,822 criminal‑fine element. The Tribunal refused very late amendments to the grounds, rejected claims of conspicuous unfairness, and declined to reduce or cancel interest.

Neil Lyon v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 920 (TC) 31 July 2025 This case concerns whether a one‑page letter said to have been sent in June 2023 constituted a valid appeal against a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) and whether the Tribunal should permit a late appeal. The Tribunal found the June Letter was not a valid appeal to HMRC (it did not identify statutory grounds), the appellant gave no credible evidence of having validly appealed earlier, and no reasonable excuse was shown for an eight‑to‑eleven month delay. Applying the three‑stage test for out‑of‑time appeals, the Tribunal refused permission to admit the late appeal.

Clear Pay Payroll Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 916 (TC) 30 July 2025 Clear Pay Payroll Ltd appealed HMRC’s VAT assessment and applied for the Tribunal to entertain the appeal without payment or deposit under VATA s84(3B). The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction to hear the hardship application, assessed hardship by reference to Clear Pay’s available resources at the hearing date, and concluded Clear Pay would suffer hardship. The Tribunal granted the application so the appeal will be entertained without payment or deposit; parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

PO (by his Controller, CD) v The Commissioners For HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1121 (TC) 25 July 2025 This appeal concerned Landfill Tax assessments for waste deposited on PO’s Northern Ireland farm in or before 2014 and whether PO “made” or “knowingly caused or permitted” the disposals. The Tribunal held that the FA 2018 deeming provision treats pre‑2018 disposals as made on 1 April 2018 for some purposes but liability is assessed by the circumstances of the actual disposals (provided the waste remained on the land on the deemed date). On the balance of probabilities the Tribunal found PO lacked capacity in 2013–2014 and rebutted the presumption of liability, so the appeal was allowed and the assessments set aside as to him; anonymity was granted.

Sovereign Corporate Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 892 (TC) 24 July 2025 This appeal by Sovereign Corporate Ltd against HMRC was dismissed by the Tribunal, which found that a valid notice of enquiry had been given to the nominated partner on 11 May 2012 (via a Company Secretary letter) and that HMRC's Closure Notice disallowing a partnership loss was therefore effective. The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence after concluding reasonable notice had been given and substituted the correct partnership name rather than striking the appeal out. The Tribunal is minded to make a costs order against Sovereign Corporate Ltd and preserved procedural rights to set-aside and appeal.

United Carpets (Franchisor) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 895 (TC) 24 July 2025 This case concerned whether United Carpets (Franchisor) Ltd or independent self‑employed fitters supplied carpet‑fitting services for VAT, and whether HMRC’s 6 July 2021 letter created a legitimate expectation preventing retrospective s.73 assessments. The Tribunal found the documentation and commercial reality showed separate contracts and that the independent fitters (not United Carpets) supplied the fitting services, so the assessments were set aside on the Supply Issue. The Tribunal rejected the legitimate‑expectation defence, finding the HMRC letter was not a clear, unambiguous representation preventing retrospective action.

Airline Placement Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 894 (TC) 23 July 2025 Airline Placement Limited (APL) sponsored cadet pilot training, collected cadet "security bonds" equal to training cost, and HMRC assessed those bonds as consideration for VAT-taxable training. The Tribunal held the bonds were, in economic and commercial reality, consideration for taxable training but found HMRC had agreed under s 85 VATA by correspondence to treat 27.4% of cadet payments as for training supplied outside the UK, so the appeal was allowed only to that limited extent and otherwise dismissed.

Canmi Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 890 (TC) 22 July 2025 Canmi Ltd appealed a joint-and-several excise liability notice issued alongside an assessment to Miss Miriam Bumah for underpaid excise on beer imports. The Tribunal found Canmi, acting as Bumah’s direct customs representative and having completed the C88 declarations, was “involved in the importation” and therefore jointly and severally liable under Regulation 12(2) of the 2010 Regulations; knowledge of the irregularity was not required. The appeal was dismissed and Canmi was held liable for £13,972.

OM Cash and Carry Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 891 (TC) 22 July 2025 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out OM Cash and Carry Ltd's appeal against a £13,596,151.25 demand for excise duty and import VAT on imported gutka. The Appellant did not attend the hearing; the Tribunal allowed HMRC to amend its strike-out grounds, proceeded in the Appellant's absence, and struck the appeal out for having no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal held that gutka is chewing tobacco and excise duty applies to the weight of the whole product (net of packaging); the import VAT element was also not challenged successfully.

Jeremy Priestley v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 876 (TC) 18 July 2025 This case concerned three interlocutory applications in appeals against HMRC final closure notices for 2007/08–2009/10: HMRC's request for further and better particulars (f and bp), the appellant's disclosure request, and HMRC's strike-out application. The tribunal held it has jurisdiction to hear appeals against the amendments and tax calculations stated in the final closure notices (but not against rolling self-assessment statements as such), granted HMRC's f and bp application requiring amended detailed grounds within 60 days, and dismissed the appellant's disclosure and HMRC's strike-out applications.

Red Rose Payroll Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 878 (TC) 18 July 2025 Red Rose Payroll Ltd appealed HMRC decisions to de-register it for VAT, deny input tax under the Kittel principle, issue a large VAT assessment and impose a penalty. The Tribunal limited the dispute to whether RRP knew or ought to have known its purchases were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion and whether the chains formed an orchestrated scheme. The Tribunal found HMRC failed, on the balance of probabilities, to prove RRP knew or ought to have known of the fraud connection and that inadequate due diligence alone did not establish knowledge or participation in an orchestrated scheme. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal did not reach the assessment or penalty decisions.

Adrian Atkins v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 875 (TC) 17 July 2025 This case concerned an application for permission to bring an appeal more than two years late against HMRC’s refusal of a £110,455 VAT repayment. The Tribunal found the 3 years and 29 days delay to be serious, that the appellant’s explanations (including pandemic disruption and alleged late review) were insufficient, and that the balance of prejudice and the importance of time limits meant permission to appeal out of time was refused. The appellant was informed of the right to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Arif Abidi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 863 (TC) 17 July 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC closure notices and penalty assessments relating to payments the appellant (sole director/shareholder of three companies) received and had not treated as taxable income or dividends. HMRC relied on bank records obtained by identification notice; the appellant repeatedly failed to comply with requests and Tribunal directions and produced late, unexplained documents. The Tribunal refused to admit the late evidence, found the appellant had not advanced a supported positive case, and struck out the appeal as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Citycom Systems Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 862 (TC) 17 July 2025 Citycom Systems Ltd appealed HMRC assessments totalling £37,884.88 seeking to recover alleged overclaimed Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments for two director-employees. The Tribunal found Citycom's calculation method did not comply with the Coronavirus Direction, accepted HMRC’s RTI-based reference pay calculations (£690 for Amjad Khan; £330 and £600 for Rehman Khan for relevant periods), and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessments as competent and in time.

Mark Campbell v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 867 (TC) 17 July 2025 Mr Campbell sold four homes between 2012 and 2016 and claimed principal private residence (PPR) relief on gains while he lived at his parents' home as his father's carer under a written employment contract from 5 April 2010. The remitted First-tier Tribunal found the parents' home was job-related accommodation provided by reason of employment and that residence there was necessary to perform the caring duties, and it accepted Mr Campbell's intentions to occupy the disposed properties as main residences for relevant periods. As a result the tribunal quashed the closure notice, discovery assessments and Schedule 41 penalties because no CGT was payable; it also stated that, had penalties been live, the disclosure discount should have been increased to 75% and failures treated as not deliberate.

Michael Neilson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 868 (TC) 17 July 2025 Mr Neilson appealed HMRC assessments seeking to remove a £1,000,000 entry in box 15 of his 2007/08 return as a non‑taxable gift. The Tribunal found the corrective action form did not amend box 15, the closure notice did not produce an appealable decision about that entry, and on the balance of probabilities the £1,000,000 was taxable income connected to his business; the appeal was dismissed.

Millennium Cash & Carry Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 865 (TC) 17 July 2025 Millennium Cash & Carry appealed HMRC decisions denying soft drinks industry levy (SDIL) export credits and issuing Schedule 8 assessments. The Tribunal held HMRC could properly decide the Appellant was not entitled to claimed credits, has an implied verification power under the SDIL statutory scheme, and may assess under paragraph 4 Schedule 8 FA 2017 to recover unpaid ascertained SDIL; but HMRC could not withdraw credits for periods in which no SDIL was declared. The appeal was allowed in part and the overall payable amount was reduced to £76,995.12.

Shonna Elizabeth Grace Hickling v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 866 (TC) 17 July 2025 This appeal challenged a £2,282 joint Excise and Customs Civil Evasion Penalty imposed after Border Force found excess tobacco in the appellant's luggage on arrival at Southampton. The Tribunal accepted the Border Force officer's contemporaneous notes, applied the Ivey test, found the appellant dishonest, upheld the 20% mitigation (10% for disclosure, 10% for cooperation) and dismissed the appeal.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Industria Umbrella Ltd (In Liquidation) [2025] UKFTT 864 (TC) 17 July 2025 This case concerns HMRC's unopposed DOTAS promoter penalty application against Industria Umbrella Ltd for failing to notify contractor loan arrangements first evidenced in November 2017. The Tribunal found the arrangements met multiple Prescribed Description Regulations (regs 8, 10, 18 and 19), that Industria was the promoter, had not notified within the five‑day period and had no reasonable excuse, and imposed a deterrent penalty increased to £1,000,000.

York SD Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 877 (TC) 16 July 2025 This appeal concerned whether six companies satisfied EIS requirements (purpose of issue s174, use of money s175, minimum period s176 and trading requirement s181) after HMRC withdrew EIS eligibility. The Tribunal found the appellants met the use-of-money requirement but failed the purpose-of-issue, minimum-period and trading requirements, rejected a deemed‑group trade argument, and dismissed the appeals upholding HMRC’s withdrawal.

Firstheaven Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 861 (TC) 11 July 2025 This case concerned an application for permission to appeal late against a Refusal Decision Notice (RDN) about CIS relief; the appeal was lodged 124 days after the 30‑day deadline. The appellant relied on non‑receipt of the RDN and subsequent administrative prioritisation as reasons for delay. The Tribunal found the delay significant, the explanations insufficiently evidenced, and refused permission to appeal late.

Sayrun Lamuth v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 856 (TC) 11 July 2025 This appeal concerned Schedule 56 late payment penalties for 2020/21–2022/23 imposed on Ms Lamuth, who mistakenly believed her rental income need not be declared and who had sought HMRC's advice in 2017 but received no reply. The Tribunal found the penalties were correctly assessed and notified but that Ms Lamuth had a reasonable excuse — a genuine mistake about liability coupled with attempts to obtain HMRC guidance and HMRC’s failure to reply — and accordingly quashed the penalties. The Tribunal also held that, alternatively, HMRC’s failure to respond in 2017 would have been a special circumstance justifying reduction to zero.

Aaron Armah v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 823 (TC) 10 July 2025 HMRC issued Closure Notices amending Mr Armah’s 2015/16–2017/18 returns to remove claimed Gift Aid of £31,717.31; the Tribunal found he had not shown qualifying donations and accepted HMRC’s evidence that the returns (filed by an agent) could be treated as showing zero Gift Aid. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Closure Notices, finding no convincing inconsistency in HMRC’s communications and no omission of other allowances from the amended returns.

Diane Stoney v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 850 (TC) 10 July 2025 This appeal concerned an application for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC assessments and closure notices totalling £9,911.80 relating to alleged invalid EIS claims. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland test, found the appellant had reading/writing difficulties, was a victim of fraud and reasonably relied on an adviser, and concluded the short delay (about four months) was excused. On balance the prejudice of refusing permission outweighed prejudice to HMRC, so permission for the late appeal was granted.

Michael Kelly v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 852 (TC) 10 July 2025 This appeal concerned whether HMRC's consequential amendment notices under s.28B(4) to a partner (following partnership closure notices) were appealable to the First-tier Tribunal. The Tribunal found the consequential amendment notice was not an appealable decision under the Tax Management Act 1970 appeal heads, did not amount to an assessment by an HMRC officer under s.30A, and Mr Kelly had not established a concluded s.32 claim-and-refusal before lodging his appeal. The Tribunal struck out the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.

Per Wimmer & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 853 (TC) 10 July 2025 This case concerns applications by Mr Per Wimmer and Wimmer Financial LLP for permission to bring a large number of late appeals against discovery assessments, closure notices and a penalty. The First-tier Tribunal applied the multi-stage Denton/Martland approach, found delays of 96–292 days to be serious and significant, rejected the appellants' reasons (including reliance on agents and financial difficulties) and refused permission to appeal out of time. The Tribunal noted that on balance of prejudice and finality permission should be refused; the appellants may apply to the Upper Tribunal.

Boris Frederiksen as Trustee in Bankruptcy of Alpha Insurance A/S & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 854 (TC) 9 July 2025 This case concerned disclosure of confidential third‑party documents in a dispute where two Danish insurers paid duplicate IPT following insolvency, and the Trustees sought to rely on and disclose redacted versions of those documents to HMRC. The Tribunal ordered disclosure of the redacted documents, allowed redaction of irrelevant/confidential identifying material, permitted the Trustees to amend their grounds of appeal, and held that HMRC may use disclosed information for other HMRC functions so no blanket prohibition on collateral use was imposed.

UK Computer Supplies Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 851 (TC) 7 July 2025 This case concerned HMRC's denial of input VAT of £1,306,789 claimed by UK Computer Supplies Ltd (UKCSL) in respect of 19 purchases, and HMRC's contention that the underlying VAT losses were fraudulent and that UKCSL knew or ought to have known of a connection to fraud. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the VAT losses were fraudulent and that, although UKCSL did not have actual knowledge, it ought to have known of the connection to fraud. The appeal was dismissed.

Abbey Healthcare (East Kilbride) Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 822 (TC) 4 July 2025 This case concerns late appeals by a group of residential care home companies against HMRC corporation tax assessments and closure notices issued in December 2020 (periods 2007–2013), including extended-time-limit (ETL) assessments. The First-tier Tribunal found Huntingdon’s appeals (dated 8 July 2021) were in time (or alternatively granted permission for late filing) and granted the Abbey Healthcare companies permission under s.49 TMA to notify late appeals against the ETL Assessments. The Tribunal applied a multi-factor exercise weighing the length and reasons for delay and prejudice to HMRC, accepting that HMRC’s handling and failure to explain discrepancies with related criminal findings reduced the force of HMRC’s opposition.

Ruby Flooring Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 821 (TC) 4 July 2025 Ruby Flooring Ltd appealed HMRC assessments reclaiming alleged overclaimed Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme payments for two director-employees. The Tribunal held the correct CJRS reference salary is the amount shown in the latest RTI FPS filed on or before 19 March 2020 (£512), rejected the appellant's legitimate expectation/unfairness argument for lack of jurisdiction, dismissed the appeal and varied the assessments to HMRC's revised totals totalling £48,489.94.

Gary Stenhouse v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 820 (TC) 3 July 2025 This appeal concerned permission to bring very late appeals against HMRC discovery assessments (total assessments c.£447,639) and against Schedule 36 information‑notice penalties (total £13,700). The First‑tier Tribunal applied the Martland three‑stage test and granted permission to appeal out of time against the discovery assessments because obvious evidential weaknesses in HMRC’s discovery/carelessness case outweighed the delay, but refused permission in respect of the penalty notices. Parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Daniel Fireman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 893 (TC) 2 July 2025 This case concerns whether an appeal against HMRC's 11 December 2020 closure notice was brought in time or, alternatively, whether permission should be granted for a very late appeal. The tribunal held that the appellant's agent's 14 February 2023 letter did not validly accept HMRC's offer of a statutory review, HMRC's corrected "view of the matter" letter was not invalidated by a typographical date error, and s118(2) TMA did not save the appeal; applying the established three‑stage (Martland) approach the tribunal refused permission for the late appeal.

Harry Construction Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 799 (TC) 30 June 2025 Harry Construction Limited appealed HMRC decisions denying two input tax claims: £705,741 as purchases connected with fraudulent VAT losses and £222,246 for lack of valid VAT invoices from UP. The First-tier Tribunal found the suppliers in the relevant chains were fraudulent and occasioned VAT losses, that HCL knew or should have known its purchases were connected to that fraud, and that UP’s invoices failed regulation 14’s description requirement; both appeals were dismissed.

Opus Labour Services Limited (in liquidation) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 800 (TC) 30 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether Opus Labour Services Ltd (in liquidation) and its director Mr Giller ought to have known that payments to a sequence of payroll suppliers were connected to VAT fraud, such that input tax should be denied and personal liability imposed. The Tribunal found HMRC proved on the balance of probabilities that Opus should have known the transactions were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion because of repeated engagement with consecutively fraudulent suppliers and seriously inadequate due diligence; it rejected a finding of actual knowledge by Mr Giller. The appeals were dismissed.

Mark Wallace v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 790 (TC) 25 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether s.849(3) ITTOIA excludes from UK tax a non‑UK resident partner’s share of partnership profits derived from rentals paid by non‑UK lessees. The First‑tier Tribunal held the partnerships carried on trades wholly in the UK, that s.849(3) requires calculating profits as if the partnership were a non‑UK resident individual while leaving the actual trade in place, and that applying that deeming the appellant remained taxable on his share of the whole partnership profits. The closure notices were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Currys Retail Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 762 (TC) 23 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether a degrouping charge under s.179(3) TCGA 1992 arose when CPW left its chargeable gains group in 2008 after agreements with BBUK; HMRC assessed a degrouping charge on £107,658,000 of goodwill. The FTT took a purposive, realistic view of the SPA, MSA and surrounding circumstances, found CPW retained legal and beneficial ownership of the businesses and goodwill (BBUK only obtained a fixed percent of future gross revenues), and held the PCN correctly alleged a degrouping charge; CPW’s appeal was dismissed. The tribunal did not resolve detailed downstream tax consequences of the inter‑company payment in this judgment.

Aminur Rahman v The Director Of Border Revenue [2025] UKFTT 761 (TC) 20 June 2025 Mr Aminur Rahman appealed the Director of Border Revenue’s refusal to review, out of time, a March 2023 decision charging VAT, duty and a 10% restoration penalty on a Rolex watch. The Tribunal held that the correct approach was the Martland three-stage balancing test (and considered the reasonable excuse test as an alternative) and, applying either test, found insufficient evidence that a timely review request had been made. The appeal was dismissed and permission to review out of time was refused.

Annette Tonkin v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 750 (TC) 19 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether a close company's payment under a 2012 disguised remuneration scheme should be apportioned to the participator, Ms Tonkin, for inheritance tax purposes after HMRC charged £83,020 under IHTA 1984 s 94. The First-tier Tribunal held that the relevant payment qualified as "profits or gains" within s 94(2)(a) because it was employment income taken into account for income tax, and therefore s 94(2)(a) prevented apportionment of the company's transfer of value to Ms Tonkin. The appeal was allowed and the Tribunal did not decide the separate corporation tax / s 12 issue as it was unnecessary.

Steven James Harvey Smith & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 752 (TC) 19 June 2025 The appellants bought South Cottage on 11 November 2022 and HMRC cancelled the MDR claim for the Cart Lodge, treating it as not a separate dwelling. The FTT found on the balance of probabilities that, as at the effective date, the Cart Lodge met the statutory test of being suitable for use as a single dwelling and allowed the appeal, granting Multiple Dwellings Relief. The Tribunal rejected HMRC's arguments that shared utilities, lack of a fire certificate, ladder access without a handrail, or absence of formal access/utility agreements made the Cart Lodge unsuitable.

3KH Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 748 (TC) 18 June 2025 HMRC appealed against 3KH Ltd and its directors challenging VAT, further VAT, corporation tax discovery assessments, NICs decisions, penalties and personal liability notices arising from suppressed cash takings at Tipu Sultan restaurants. The Tribunal found significant suppression of cash sales at Tipu Sultan Moseley, that 3KH operated Tipu Sultan Leicester, upheld HMRC’s assessments made in best judgment (with HMRC’s amendments), and found deliberate conduct attributable to directors MJ and MB; the appeal was refused and all challenged liabilities and penalties were upheld in the amended sums.

FTU Pod Trans v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 753 (TC) 17 June 2025 FTU Pod Trans, a Polish haulage company, appealed HMRC assessments after Border Force found 1,583,500 cigarettes concealed in its vehicle. The First-tier Tribunal upheld the excise assessment, treating the Appellant as "holding" the cigarettes under r13(2)(b) HMDP, and affirmed the Schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty but reduced it to reflect that the Appellant's conduct was prompted rather than deliberate and allowed a larger disclosure reduction. The late appeal was permitted; parties may apply to fix the varied penalty quantum if not agreed.

Conservatory Insulations Northwest Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 705 (TC) 12 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether a VAT assessment by HMRC was "made" within the statutory time limit. The Tribunal found HMRC's own records showed a penalty inhibit had been set, so internal guidance required a counter-signature and the assessment was not made until that counter‑signature/authorisation in mid‑July 2023; notified on 22 July 2023, it was therefore out of time. HMRC's strike‑out application was refused and the appellant's appeal was allowed.

Dennis Lucas v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 702 (TC) 12 June 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for 2016/17–2020/21 arising from expense and uniform rebate claims submitted by Apostle Accounting Ltd for Mr Lucas. The Tribunal found Apostle acted on Mr Lucas's behalf when it submitted the returns, that HMRC only had the returns available at the end of the enquiry windows so s29(5) permitted discovery assessments, and that Apostle deliberately brought about the loss of tax such that the extended time limits under s36 TMA applied; the appeal was dismissed.

Rajab Ali Zafari v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 749 (TC) 12 June 2025 This Tribunal dismissed Mr Zafari’s application for permission to appeal out of time against HMRC closure notices, assessments and penalties, finding a 2 years 7 months 24 days delay for which no good reason was shown. Central issues were whether the s118(2) TMA “reasonable excuse” concept displaced the usual s49 out‑of‑time permission process and whether reliance on accountants, poor English, caring responsibilities or HMRC delay justified the lateness; the Tribunal held they did not. The Tribunal applied the established three‑stage (Denton) balancing approach and refused permission.

Simon Smart v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 701 (TC) 12 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether reinvested Brazilian JCP distributions allocated to Mr Smart were taxable under s.385 ITTOIA as sums he "received or was entitled to" for 2015/16–2017/18, and whether the tribunal should treat his position "as if" equitable rescission had been granted for alleged fraudulent misrepresentation. The tribunal found Mr Smart was the legal and beneficial owner entitled to the JCP as declared and allocated, rejected his fraud/rescission case on the evidence, and refused the appeal so HMRC’s assessments and closure notice stand.

T Hilling & Co Ltd t/a Chobham Adventure Farm v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 704 (TC) 12 June 2025 This is an appeal by T Hilling & Co Ltd (Chobham Adventure Farm) against HMRC assessments seeking repayment of CJRS grants in respect of three employees. The Tribunal found the requisite RTI FPS submissions by the statutory qualifying dates were absent, so the employees did not satisfy CJRS eligibility and the employer is liable to repay; alleged unrecorded telephone advice, agent error and internal HMRC material did not establish entitlement or legitimate expectation. The appeals were dismissed but the assessments were varied to £8,630.68, £17,300.11 and £2,254.84 (total £28,285.63).

Eastern Power Networks PLC & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 703 (TC) 10 June 2025 This case concerns consortium loss relief claimed by subsidiaries of UKPNH for 2011–2016 and HMRC's limitation of relief by applying s146B, which halves relief where arrangements form part of a scheme whose main purpose is a tax advantage. The Tribunal held that, for calculating "ownership proportion" where multiple link companies exist, the relevant provisions (ss165–167 and s144) must be applied to the link companies collectively to avoid double-counting, producing a lowest ownership proportion of 40% (HMRC's figure). The Tribunal also found that Article 7.5 formed part of a corporate-structure scheme whose one of the main purposes was to enable enhanced consortium relief, so s146B applied; the appeal was dismissed.

BGC Services Holdings LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 700 (TC) 9 June 2025 HMRC issued unreasoned Regulation 80 PAYE determinations totalling £96,037,893 to BGC for 2017–18 to 2019–20; BGC appealed and HMRC sought further and better particulars, which the Tribunal refused. The Tribunal later found HMRC’s Statement of Case did not set out key parts of its legal and factual case and ordered HMRC to particularise its case by specified Directions. HMRC’s applications for permission to appeal those two case‑management decisions were refused.

Zed-UK Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 801 (TC) 9 June 2025 Zed-UK Ltd bought high-value goods from Digi in early 2021; HMRC denied input tax of £194,651 and imposed a 30% company penalty of £58,395. The Tribunal found insufficient evidence of actual knowledge of VAT fraud but held there were sufficient circumstantial warning signs and inadequate due diligence such that Zed ought to have known under Kittel, so the denial and the penalty were upheld. HMRC's personal liability notice against Mr Choudry was withdrawn.

Andrew Moffat v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 663 (TC) 5 June 2025 This Tribunal decision joined two appeals: whether the sale of Chelsea Marine Ltd/Chelsea Yacht & Boat Co Ltd qualified for Entrepreneurs' Relief (ER), and whether HMRC correctly imposed penalties for careless inaccuracies in the taxpayers' 2016/17 returns. The Tribunal held CYBC was not a trading company for ER because a substantial part of its activities were non‑trading (notably mooring fees/licences and cost‑recharged maintenance), so ER was refused. The Tribunal nevertheless found the appellants had taken reasonable care by relying on professional advice and allowed the appeals against the Schedule 24 penalty assessments.

BK Dhaliwal v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 659 (TC) 5 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether contributions to a self‑employed remuneration trust (SERT) were deductible under ITTOIA and whether the "wholly and exclusively" test must be read in accordance with EU fundamental freedoms as a preliminary legal issue. The Tribunal refused the Appellant's application to determine EU compatibility as a standalone preliminary issue, granted HMRC's application to case‑manage the appeal within an existing grouped SERT process, and stayed the proceedings pending lead‑case management.

Clatterbridge Pharmacy Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 661 (TC) 5 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether intravenous and injectable cancer medicines dispensed by Clatterbridge Pharmacy Ltd to named outpatients for use at home qualified for zero rating under Schedule 8, Group 12, Item 1 VATA, specifically the meaning of "personal use". The Tribunal held that "personal use" means use by a named individual patient and does not require the patient to self‑administer, and therefore allowed CPL's appeal.

Performance Leads Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 660 (TC) 5 June 2025 Performance Leads Ltd operated websites that collected consumer enquiries and sold monetisable leads to independent financial advisers (IFAs). HMRC denied repayment of VAT on the basis that the supplies were taxable advertising rather than exempt intermediary services under Schedule 9 Group 5 Item 5 (Item 6 services). The Tribunal found PL performed a meaningful sift/assessment and thereby acted as an intermediary "bringing together" seekers and providers so the supplies fell within Item 6, allowed PL's appeal and set aside HMRC's refusal.

Roger Joye v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 664 (TC) 5 June 2025 This Tribunal allowed appeals by Mr Joye and Mr Sumners against HMRC closure notices cancelling overpayment relief (OPR) claims for top slicing relief (TSR), finding HMRC had not proved a "practice generally prevailing" (PGP) that would validate the TSR calculations at the filing dates. The Tribunal held the existence of a PGP is a factual question requiring evidence of a settled, ascertainable, generally adopted and consistently applied practice, and concluded HMRC did not discharge that burden. It found the previously asserted practice ceased after publication in September 2017 of a Taxation article challenging HMRC’s methodology. The appeals were allowed and the OPRs given effect, subject to rights to seek permission to appeal.

David Benson & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1442 (TC) 4 June 2025 This appeal concerned the Rathowen contractor loan scheme and whether sums paid to UK IT contractors (labelled as loans) were taxable as trading receipts or employment earnings, and related PAYE/closure notice jurisdiction issues. The Tribunal found the Scheme ran from 2008–2013/14, was a tax-avoidance arrangement, and dismissed all appeals: Appellants 1–5 were bound by their 2018 Closure Notices so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to recharacterise status, while HMRC could rely on alternative grounds in the 2021 Closure Notices to uphold assessments for Appellants 6, 7 and 10. The Tribunal held the labelled "loans" formed part of taxable receipts, scheme fees were not deductible, and there was insufficient evidence of a UK tax presence for Rathowen.

JD Wetherspoon PLC v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 658 (TC) 3 June 2025 This appeal concerned whether supplies of cider fell within the RR Order exclusion for "alcoholic beverages" for 15 July 2020–31 March 2022. The FTT held that on ordinary construction the definition did not include cider, but applied the Inco rectifying interpretation and, separately, a conforming interpretation required by EU law to read cider into the definition. The tribunal therefore dismissed Wetherspoon’s claim for reduced-rate VAT on cider.

Advanced Hair Technology Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 599 (TC) 29 May 2025 Advanced Hair Technology Ltd (AHT) sought costs from HMRC for unreasonable conduct in defending a penalty after late evidence emerged. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC acted unreasonably from the lunch adjournment on day three (28 Feb 2024) because they should have reassessed and withdrawn the penalty then but did not communicate withdrawal until just before day four evidence. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to pay AHT’s costs attributable to the penalty after that adjournment, to be assessed on the standard basis, and set a timetable for any detailed costs schedule.

Alison Moss v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 595 (TC) 29 May 2025 This appeal concerned discovery assessments issued by HMRC for unreported Airbnb rental income from a jointly owned property let 2017–2020 and claims for deduction of solar-panel loan repayments. The tribunal found the discovery assessments valid, held the appellant alone carried on the rental business and was solely taxable on the profits (rejecting that the former husband was beneficially entitled to half), and disallowed the solar‑panel loan repayments as deductions. The appeal was dismissed.

Hamid Mojarad & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 598 (TC) 29 May 2025 This appeal concerned two directors against Personal Liability Notices (PLNs) issued after HMRC varied a company VAT assessment based on an average ticket price derived from contemporaneous ticket records ("Yellow Book"). The Tribunal accepted HMRC's average (£19.65), rejected the appellants' lower estimates as unsupported, found the inaccuracies deliberate (so the paragraph 18(3) defence failed), and upheld disclosure reductions and the PLNs of £12,145.50 each. The late appeals were permitted but dismissed on the merits.

Michael Whines v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 597 (TC) 29 May 2025 This case concerns Mr Whines' appeals against HMRC's denial of Entrepreneurs' Relief, HMRC's recharacterisation of £74,000 declared as employment income as a distribution, and related Schedule 24 penalties. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals: Mr Whines failed the 12‑month officer/employee qualifying test for Entrepreneurs' Relief and produced no contemporaneous evidence that the £74,000 was paid as PAYE salary, so HMRC was entitled to treat it as a distribution. The Tribunal found the inaccuracy deliberate and upheld a recalculated Schedule 24 penalty of £5,067.70, but rejected HMRC’s late attempt to increase the penalty to reflect an additional £9,471 alleged lost revenue.

Rushby Dance and Fitness Centre & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 594 (TC) 29 May 2025 This case concerns four linked VAT appeals on whether private dance tuition provided by the appellants falls within the Schedule 9, Group 6 exemption for subjects "ordinarily taught in schools or universities" and whether certain supplies were private tuition by individuals acting independently. The tribunal held that DCI's teaching members acted on their own account so DCI's appeal succeeds in principle; by contrast Rushby, Jagers and Mrs Hilton did not show their disputed classes were in subjects commonly taught in schools or universities, so those supplies are standard-rated and their appeals were dismissed. Practical consequences for DCI (which specific classes were taught by members) were left to the parties to agree with liberty to apply to the tribunal.

Conchri Investments Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 600 (TC) 28 May 2025 Conchri Investments Ltd appealed Schedule 55 penalties of £15,700 for late ATED returns. The Tribunal held that statutory penalties apply even where no ATED tax is due, rejected the company's reliance on its accountants and HMRC not having notified it as reasonable excuses, found no special circumstances to reduce penalties, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalties.

Fisher Hurst Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 562 (TC) 22 May 2025 Fisher Hurst Limited appealed an HMRC s73 VAT assessment of £63,600 for period 10/19, challenging that it had proved zero‑rated removals of plastic sheeting to T&D Sales Ltd in the Republic of Ireland. The First‑tier Tribunal found the company’s invoices, limited bank statements, tachograph cards and an expert report did not provide sufficient, auditable corroboration of removal or delivery and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also held HMRC’s assessment was made in time under s73(6) VATA 1994 and was a lawful exercise of best judgment.

Ingliston Driving Experiences Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 564 (TC) 22 May 2025 Ingliston Driving Experiences Ltd appealed HMRC’s decision treating its July 2020 supplies as standard-rated VAT rather than the temporary reduced 5% rate under Group 16/Item 7. The Tribunal found Ingliston’s peripatetic supercar event days—access to a gated pitlane venue with drives or rides in supercars—constituted a "right of admission" to an attraction similar to a fair or amusement park and allowed the appeal. The VAT assessment for period 10/20 was discharged and input tax of £13,109.20 was held recoverable (subject to a reduction for input inaccuracies).

Kearney Transport Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 593 (TC) 22 May 2025 Kearney Transport, a family haulage company, applied for hardship relief to avoid paying an assessed excise duty of £69,281 pending its appeal. The Tribunal found that the appellant bore the burden of proof and that the 2024 accounts together with oral evidence did not sufficiently demonstrate an inability to pay; the hardship application was therefore rejected. The appeal will not proceed unless the duty is paid or further steps are taken.

Nissi N Nissi Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 567 (TC) 22 May 2025 This Tribunal decision concerns applications by Nissi N Nissi Ltd and Ms Adeosun for permission to bring late appeals against two VAT-related penalty assessments and a personal liability notice (PLN). The appeals were 9–11 months late; the appellants relied on their accountant and non-awareness of the notices. Applying the Martland/Denton approach the Tribunal found the delay serious and unexplained and refused permission to admit the late appeals.

Simon Lloyd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 563 (TC) 22 May 2025 Mr Lloyd appealed HMRC closure notices and a discovery assessment removing trade loss relief for 2019/20–2021/22. HMRC applied (before the deadline) for a 14‑day extension to serve its statement of case because of late SDES disclosures and the need for internal technical input; the tribunal granted the extension under rule 2, finding no culpable delay and no prejudice to the appellant. The tribunal held that the application was not an application for relief from sanctions and gave directions for further conduct of the appeal.

Tamzin Eyre & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 566 (TC) 22 May 2025 This appeal concerned whether disposals of shares in PSSL qualified as material disposals of business assets for entrepreneurs' relief. The Tribunal found PSSL was not carrying on a trade in the relevant year though it was taking preparatory steps to develop property; because non‑trading activities (notably prior investment character, rental income and non‑trading debtors) were a substantial part of its activities, entrepreneurs' relief was refused and the appeals dismissed.

Asim Hussain v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 546 (TC) 19 May 2025 This case concerns Mr Hussain's appeal against failure-to-notify penalties for tax years 2016/17–2020/21, where he relied on having received an HMRC SA251-type letter and on caring responsibilities as a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal found he probably received an SA251 example and that his caring responsibilities were as described, but held that the SA251 letter, read as a whole, did not reasonably lead him to believe he would never need to file and that it was not objectively reasonable to assume PAYE would cover future property tax liabilities. Accordingly the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld HMRC's reductions to the penalties (including a 75% reduction for non-deliberate failure and cooperation) and refused a further special reduction.

CIS-Pay Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 751 (TC) 19 May 2025 CIS-Pay sought wide disclosure from HMRC in concurrent appeals: an input tax denial (Kittel Appeal) and a s69C penalty (Penalty Appeal). The Tribunal held that Article 6 ECHR protections apply to the Penalty Appeal and cannot be curtailed simply because related tax issues without Article 6 protection are being heard concurrently, and therefore granted CIS-Pay's disclosure application in principle. The Tribunal left the precise form and timing of disclosure to agreement between the parties (or further direction), subject to modifications to avoid disclosing material already available to CIS-Pay and to preserve proportionality.

B J Shere Khan Star City Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 543 (TC) 16 May 2025 This appeal concerned large VAT and corporation tax assessments and penalties issued to B J Shere Khan Star City Ltd (BJSKSCL) and related personal liability notices to its director, arising from HMRC’s view that the company also operated the Oodles takeaway and had suppressed sales and improperly claimed input tax/zero‑rating. The Tribunal found the evidence did not establish that BJSKSCL traded as Oodles and rejected suppression, allowed limited best‑judgment adjustments on zero‑rating and some input‑tax items, held most VAT assessments time‑barred (leaving only 07/14) and most CT discovery assessments invalid except for two failure‑to‑notify periods, reduced penalties on a finding of carelessness (not deliberate) and set aside the PLNs.

ESC Studios Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 747 (TC) 16 May 2025 This appeal concerned a £9,025.59 Schedule 26 VAT late‑payment penalty imposed on ESC Studios Ltd for non‑payment of VAT due 7 August 2024. The Tribunal found that ESC had a reasonable excuse because a substantial repayment due from HMRC (for the quarter to 31 March 2024) was delayed by HMRC's checks, ESC had genuinely and reasonably expected that repayment by the payment date and had taken reasonable steps to expedite it, and the resulting insufficiency of funds was attributable to events outside ESC's control. The penalty was cancelled (and, alternatively, reduced to nil under paragraph 13).

Global Trailer Rentals Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 565 (TC) 16 May 2025 This case concerns a seized trailer containing mis‑manifested beer where HMRC's Review Officer allowed restoration of the trailer for a £1,000 fee on 6 December 2023. The First‑tier Tribunal found the review decision contained multiple material factual errors and relied on irrelevant matters, and held that the decision to impose the fee was not one a reasonable review officer should have made. The Tribunal directed the restoration‑for‑fee decision to cease to have effect from 6 December 2023 and ordered restoration of the trailer free of charge.

Ryan Houghton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 545 (TC) 16 May 2025 This appeal concerned two seizures of tobacco from Mr Houghton at Manchester Airport and a combined civil evasion penalty initially revised to £11,252. The First-tier Tribunal found he was dishonest on both occasions (using the green channel with misleading answers on 27 August 2021 and under‑declaring on 8 October 2021) and allowed the appeal only to adjust disclosure reductions upward (to 25% and 30% respectively), leaving co‑operation reductions at 20% and directing HMRC to recalculate the penalty.

Ved Parkash v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 544 (TC) 16 May 2025 This case concerns VP's applications to extend the 28‑day time limit for seeking reinstatement of an appeal and for reinstatement itself after his appeal was struck out for non‑compliance with an Unless Order. The Tribunal applied the Martland three‑stage test and rejected VP's explanations (including claimed illness and inability to find solicitors) as inadequately evidenced and inconsistent, found the 46‑day delay serious, and concluded prejudice to HMRC and the public interest outweighed VP's prejudice. Both the extension and reinstatement applications were refused.

Anne Concepta Moran v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 540 (TC) 14 May 2025 This is an appeal by Mrs Anne Moran against HMRC assessments alleging a taxable accommodation benefit under ss 731–733 because she lived rent‑free at "Highlands", owned through Jersey structures and funded by loans. The Tribunal found the accommodation benefit arose from the offshore company/loan arrangements, rejected Mrs Moran’s "motive defence" (Condition A), upheld HMRC’s discovery assessments for 2012/13 and 2013/14, and fixed taxable quantum as full market rent (no proven contributions shown). All appeals were dismissed.

Paul Hunt & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 538 (TC) 12 May 2025 This appeal concerned whether s.685(6) Income Tax Act 2007 excluded receipts from a 2015 capital reduction from the TIS counteraction in s.685(2)(a). The Tribunal held s.685(6) excludes only returns of share capital that are lawfully distributable as dividends, did not accept that the subsection’s cross-reference was an obvious drafting error, and found GHL could not lawfully distribute the capital reduction as a dividend. The appeals were dismissed and the HMRC counteraction notices and assessments were upheld.

Blindspot Global Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 568 (TC) 9 May 2025 Blindspot Global Ltd applied 17 months out of time for permission to make a costs application against HMRC after withdrawing its late VAT appeal; the Tribunal found the Appellant gave no adequate explanation for the delay, refused permission to admit the costs application out of time, and dismissed the substantive costs claim. The Tribunal also found HMRC had not acted unreasonably in the conduct of the proceedings. Permission to appeal was preserved.

Flooring Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 526 (TC) 9 May 2025 KNR Flooring Limited appealed HMRC assessments seeking recovery of alleged overclaimed CJRS payments for two directors, disputing whether their reference salary was £512 (per RTI data) or £2,952 (KNR’s case). The Tribunal found the RTI submission of 19 March 2020 showing £512 to be determinative and concluded KNR had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the higher salary took effect before the relevant CJRS date. The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to entertain a freestanding legitimate expectation argument and dismissed the appeal, upholding assessments totalling £49,874.67.

Nicholas Powell v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 528 (TC) 9 May 2025 This appeal concerned whether a Novation Deed that substituted PHSW as creditor for Thermoline and released the appellant from his obligations to Thermoline constituted a taxable "release" of a director's loan under ITTOIA/CTA. The Tribunal held that although the deed provided contractual consideration and substituted creditors, Thermoline did not in economic or tax terms recover its money and clause 3.1(a) therefore effected a taxable release. The appeal was refused and HMRC's deemed dividend assessment was upheld.

Preferred Tubes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 524 (TC) 9 May 2025 Preferred Tubes Ltd sought permission to bring an out-of-time appeal against HMRC’s decision charging safeguarding duty and import VAT on steel imports; the appeal was 164 days late. The tribunal applied the three-stage Martland/Denton approach, found the delay serious, gave limited weight to the appellant’s explanations (including alleged CHIEF system problems, agent advice and personal pressures), and refused permission to appeal out of time. The appellant thus has no permission to challenge the decision or review conclusion out of time; they may apply for permission to appeal this refusal under Rule 39 within 56 days.

Sharma Zahra Zaidi v The Commissioners For His Majesty’s Revenue And Customs [2025] UKFTT 527 (TC) 9 May 2025 This case concerns an application by Sharma Zahra Zaidi for permission to notify an appeal out of time against two HMRC closure notices dated 9 August 2017 increasing tax for 2011/12 and 2012/13. The tribunal found a 2 years 3 months delay in notifying the appeal, insufficient explanation for that delay, attributed failings of the authorised agent to the appellant, found the appellant’s underlying case weak and HMRC would be prejudiced, and refused permission to bring the late appeal.

Solent Pathway Campus Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 596 (TC) 9 May 2025 This appeal concerned whether Solent Pathway Campus Ltd (SPCL) qualified for VAT exemption as a college of Solent University under Note 1(b) to Schedule 9 Group 6 VATA 1994, or alternatively whether its International Foundation Programmes (IFPs) were exempt supplies of teaching English as a foreign language (TEFL) under Note 1(f). The Tribunal applied a five-factor SAE integration test and found on the facts that SPCL was a college of the University; alternatively it found the IFPs were a single composite supply whose predominant element was TEFL (EAP) and so exempt. HMRC’s alternative readings of Note 2 and of TEFL as limited to low-level/general English were rejected. The appeal was allowed and permission to apply for appeal was recorded.

Dual Homes and Land Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 523 (TC) 8 May 2025 Dual Homes and Land Ltd applied for permission to bring three tribunal appeals out of time against HMRC decisions reducing or denying VAT input tax and issuing assessments for 2022. The tribunal found a delay of over five months but accepted the appellant’s explanations (document review and attempts to engage with HMRC, and a timely statutory review request), found little genuine prejudice to HMRC, and granted permission to appeal out of time. The appeals may now proceed; either party may apply for permission to appeal this decision under Rule 39 within 56 days.

Shamsul Arefin v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 522 (TC) 8 May 2025 This Tribunal appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and Schedule 24 penalties after CDF disclosures by Mr Arefin and Mrs Nahar about undeclared commission and rental income. The Tribunal found it reasonable for HMRC to treat unexplained cash deposits as commission income, upheld the assessments and penalties but reduced the Tribunal’s estimate of 2010 commission income from £30,000 each to £10,000 each, and adjusted the assessment and penalty figures accordingly. The Tribunal criticised the Appellants’ delayed and incomplete disclosure and found HMRC’s mitigation generous and not to be reduced further.

Commissioners for HMRC v ZS Tech Solutions UK Limited [2025] UKFTT 525 (TC) 6 May 2025 This case concerns HMRC's application for a penalty under section 98(1)(b)(i) TMA after ZS Tech Solutions UK Limited failed to comply with a statutory information notice issued under the ITA and then failed to comply with Tribunal directions and an unless order. The Tribunal barred the company for non‑compliance, proceeded in its absence, and found the company liable to a £300 penalty for failing to furnish the requested information. The decision allows HMRC's application and records 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Charlotte Macdonald v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 495 (TC) 1 May 2025 This appeal concerned whether sideways loss relief could be claimed for losses from a woodland shoot on the Bretby Estate and whether HMRC validly issued a s29 discovery assessment (2016–17) and s28A closure notices (2017–18 to 2020–21). The Tribunal found the Shoot was run commercially but not "with a view to the realisation of profits", and it was not part of a larger undertaking; HMRC's discovery assessment and closure notices were held to be valid. The appeals were dismissed.

Denise Howarth v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 499 (TC) 1 May 2025 This FTT decision concerned late appeals by Denise Howarth against £1,600 of penalties for a 2020–21 tax return said to be late. The Tribunal admitted the appeals despite substantial delay and found that the Appellant had a reasonable excuse because she reasonably believed she had submitted the online return (having taken a contemporaneous screenshot) and was unaware of any failed submission until March 2023. The appeals were allowed and the penalties cancelled; the Tribunal did not reach the issue of special reduction.

Get a Drip Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 500 (TC) 1 May 2025 Get a Drip Ltd appealed HMRC’s assessment that its IV vitamin drips and injectable booster shots were standard-rated for VAT. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities, based on representative patient samples and expert evidence, that the supplies were medical care the principal purpose of which was diagnosing, treating or protecting/maintaining health. The appeal was allowed for the sampled supplies as falling within the Schedule 9 Group 7 medical exemption.

Lance Milligan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 498 (TC) 1 May 2025 This case concerned Mr Lance Milligan’s appeal against nine discovery assessments for tax years 2000/01–2008/09 and a penalty for failure to file self‑assessment returns. The Tribunal found notices to file had been sent, concluded the taxpayer’s behaviour in causing the loss of tax was deliberate (though not dishonest), upheld the assessments (applying the 20‑year limit for earlier years and 6‑year for later years), rejected the reasonable excuse defence to the penalty, and dismissed the appeal. HMRC’s expense allowances and abatements were upheld.

MiniCloud LTD v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 501 (TC) 1 May 2025 MiniCloud appealed HMRC decisions denying input VAT. The Tribunal held that, for costs under Rule 10(1)(b), HMRC’s conduct should be assessed only for the period while the Tribunal had jurisdiction (here from hardship approval on 14 March 2024 to HMRC’s withdrawal on 22 April 2024). The Tribunal found HMRC did not act unreasonably in that period and refused the appellant’s costs application.

NHS Ayrshire & Arran Health Board v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 502 (TC) 1 May 2025 This appeal concerned whether NHS Ayrshire & Arran’s National Secure Adolescent Inpatient Service (NSAIS) qualified for VAT zero‑rating for the Accommodation/Bedroom Wing as a Relevant Residential Purpose (RRP). The tribunal found NSAIS’s primary purpose is providing medical treatment and rehabilitation to detained young people so it is a "hospital or similar institution" under Note 4, and the Bedroom Wing was not intended for use solely as RRP under Note 10. The appeal was dismissed and zero‑rating refused.

Realbuzz Group LTD v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 493 (TC) 1 May 2025 Realbuzz Group Ltd appealed a discovery assessment by HMRC disallowing a £335,452.57 R&D relief claim for the accounting period ended 30 April 2020. The Tribunal held that, for paragraph 44(1) purposes, a hypothetical HMRC officer needed only to be reasonably aware at the last day for enquiries (LDE) that the claim was excessive, not to quantify the shortfall, and on the facts would have been so aware from the information available; the 2021 R&D report was not “information made available” for APE 2020. The Tribunal allowed Realbuzz’s appeal and set aside the discovery assessment.

Turkish Food Supplies Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 496 (TC) 1 May 2025 Turkish Food Supplies Ltd (TFS) appealed an HMRC post-clearance import VAT demand arising from large advance "hedge" payments to supplier Vitan. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that most of the £718,000 were advance payments to secure supply/pricing and were not payments for specific imported goods, so import VAT was only due on the declared values totalling £111,390.32; the appeal against HMRC's reduced demand of £121,321.93 was allowed. A separate £972.22 demand for a single import was not shown by TFS to be incorrect and that part of the appeal was dismissed.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Industria Umbrella LTD [2025] UKFTT 494 (TC) 30 April 2025 HMRC applied for penalties under DOTAS after Industria Umbrella Ltd ran an umbrella contractor scheme paying users a National Minimum Wage salary plus large "loan" payments and retained c.13–15% of contract value. The Tribunal found the arrangements were notifiable under the Prescribed Descriptions Regulations, that Industria was a promoter which failed to notify within the prescribed period and had no reasonable excuse, and imposed a penalty of £1,000,000.

Accuro Trust (Switzerland) SA v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 464 (TC) 28 April 2025 This appeal concerned whether additions made in 2006 to a trust created in 1992 when the settlor was non‑UK‑domiciled lost "excluded property" status for IHT purposes, and whether s 255 IHTA applied to HMRC's denial of repayment. The tribunal held that "the time the settlement was made" in s 48(3) is ordinarily the time the trust was first constituted, so later additions do not defeat excluded property where the trust was originally made by a non‑domiciled settlor, and that s 255 did not apply because HMRC's stated view was not shown to be "generally received or generally adopted in practice." The tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside HMRC's determinations, and ordered repayment of the disputed tax.

Prestige Transport Solutions Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 463 (TC) 28 April 2025 Prestige Transport Solutions Ltd (PTS) appealed four excise duty assessments and a related penalty. The Tribunal found PTS had physical possession of goods stored at its premises and failed to prove duty had been paid, so PTS was the first identifiable holder for the First and Second Assessments (appeals dismissed); the Third and part of the Fourth were traced to an earlier holder (Universe Drinks Ltd) and those parts succeeded, with the Fourth reduced accordingly. The penalty was held to be for careless, not deliberate, behaviour and was reduced to 30% (£17,062.50).

Rohit Kotecha v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 497 (TC) 28 April 2025 This appeal concerned a late application by Mr Kotecha to opt out of the tribunal's complex-case costs regime after his appeal was reinstated. The tribunal applied the Martland/Denton test and the Katib principles on attributing agent failings to clients, found the delay (about 1 year 7 months) serious and unjustified, attributed the agent’s failings to the appellant, and refused permission to make the late opt-out. The tribunal also concluded that granting relief would prejudice HMRC and conflict with the overriding objective.

Afsha Chugtai v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 458 (TC) 24 April 2025 This appeal concerned whether two trusts created by the deceased in 2000 (a Henley Road property trust and a Santander account trust) were gifts with reservation of benefit for inheritance tax. The tribunal found that during the seven years before death the deceased continued to occupy and enjoy the trust property and to obtain benefits from the trust account (occupation without market rent; use of the shop and receipt of rent; payments from the account towards property outgoings and some personal expenses). The tribunal dismissed the appellant’s appeal and treated the trust assets as part of the chargeable estate, leaving a separate valuation issue for Henley Road open.

Align Technology Switzerland GmbH & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 462 (TC) 24 April 2025 This FTT decision determined that bespoke, removable Invisalign aligners supplied by Align to dentists are "dental prostheses" within Items 2 and 2A of Group 7 of Schedule 9 VATA94 and therefore VAT-exempt. The tribunal held that the term can include orthodontic appliances used to move teeth, applying ordinary meaning, context and the purpose of the exemption, and allowed Align's appeal.

Generic Maths Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 460 (TC) 24 April 2025 Generic Maths Limited appealed an amended s73 VAT assessment of £80,118.88 for 10/14–07/18, arguing its ConquerMaths product was an exempt "examination service" under Schedule 9 Group 6 Item 3 rather than a standard-rated teaching/revision product. The Tribunal applied an objective consumer-perception test (and considered a functional test) and concluded ConquerMaths is a teaching/tutorial or revision product, not an examination service, and upheld HMRC's assessment as made to the best of their judgment and timely. The Tribunal also declined jurisdiction to grant legitimate-expectation relief and found that claim failed on the merits.

Hannaford PPE Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 459 (TC) 24 April 2025 This case concerns applications for permission to bring late appeals by Hannaford PPE Ltd and Mr Jones against a VAT penalty and a personal liability notice after they did not receive an HMRC Decision Letter. The Tribunal applied the three-stage test for late appeals, found the Decision Letter had not been received, and held that HMRC bore responsibility for much of the delay while the appellants acted reasonably in seeking the letter and appealing promptly once they received it. Permission for the late appeals was granted.

Raymond Charles Eyre & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 461 (TC) 23 April 2025 This appeal concerned whether the Eyres’ purchase, redevelopment and sale of a Chelsea house was an adventure in the nature of trade and whether the house was their principal private residence (PPR) for CGT relief. The First-tier Tribunal found the transaction was not a trading venture, and that the Eyres occupied and nominated Burnsall Street as their main residence from July 2013 until they moved out, so PPR relief applied for that period. The Tribunal declined to determine tax quantum and left that to the parties (with a right to return to the Tribunal).

Hive Umbrella Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 457 (TC) 17 April 2025 This case records the First-tier Tribunal rejecting Hive Umbrella Ltd’s appeal against HMRC’s allocation of SRN 07889152 under the DOTAS regime, concerning Hive’s “Bonus Scheme” offering salary sacrifice plus advances on notional future bonuses. The Tribunal held Hive was a promoter, the arrangements met multiple prescribed hallmarks (Regs 8, 10, 18, 19), the advances were not genuine loans and the scheme might be expected to enable a tax advantage (notably tax deferral). HMRC’s SRN allocation and related actions stand and the appeal is dismissed.

Andrew Brown v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 456 (TC) 16 April 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge for 2018/19 and 2019/20. The tribunal found Officer Harrison made a valid discovery on 4 June 2021 and that the discovery assessments dated 17 May 2022 were validly issued and served; the appellant did not prove the assessments overcharged him and the appeals for those two years were dismissed. HMRC had withdrawn assessments and penalties for earlier years, and those parts of the appeal were allowed accordingly.

George Jennings v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 455 (TC) 16 April 2025 Mr Jennings appealed HMRC civil evasion penalties of £4,265 following seizure at Manchester Airport of quantities of tobacco well above the personal allowance. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that he acted dishonestly and remained responsible for the goods despite later attributing them to an ex‑partner, and it dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also upheld the penalties and the 50% mitigation applied by HMRC.

John Firth v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 428 (TC) 15 April 2025 This was a case management hearing in two joined appeals against Personal Liability Notices totalling about £7.4m where the appellant, now litigant in person with serious health issues, repeatedly failed to comply with directions, did not engage with HMRC or attend the pre-hearing review, and produced only limited, non-specific medical material. The Tribunal found the medical evidence insufficient to assess the appellant’s ability to participate or to plan reasonable adjustments, concluded the appellant had failed to co-operate so as to prevent a fair and just hearing, and struck the appeals out under Tribunal Rule 8(3)(b).

Roseline Logistics Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 427 (TC) 15 April 2025 HMRC sought import VAT of £1,126,249.64 arising from 32 postponed VAT accounting declarations submitted by Roseline on behalf of QP Trading Ltd (QPTL). The Tribunal held Roseline was not liable under TCTA s21(6)(c) because it had not been validly appointed by QPTL, but was jointly and severally liable under TCTA s6(3)(d) read with s6(4)(c)/(6) because it participated in the breach by making the PVA claims and ought reasonably to have known of the breach. The Tribunal also found that imposing liability did not breach Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR. The appeal was dismissed.

Accelerate Corporation Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 419 (TC) 10 April 2025 This appeal challenged a discovery assessment and related adjustments by HMRC after Accelerate failed to include £369,000 of unpaid invoices to Intelligent Organics Ltd (IOL) in its accounts and tax return. The Tribunal held HMRC made a valid discovery, the insufficiency arose from carelessness by or on behalf of Accelerate so the six‑year time limit applied, and Accelerate failed to show the IOL debt was impaired in the accounting periods to 30 Sept 2016 or 30 Sept 2017. The discovery assessment and disallowance of unsupported consultancy expenditure were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Christian Peter Candy v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 416 (TC) 10 April 2025 This appeal concerns Mr Christian Candy's claim for repayment of £1,920,000 SDLT which he said should have been repaid under s.44(9) Finance Act 2003 but could not be pursued in time. The First-tier Tribunal held that paragraph 34, Schedule 10 (with paras 34A/34B) operates as a statutory back-stop remedial gateway allowing repayment where other statutory remedies cannot be pursued, and that s.44(9)’s procedural requirement to amend a return does not preclude a separate Para 34 claim. The tribunal allowed Mr Candy’s Para 34 claim and dismissed HMRC’s refusal.

Gary Quillan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 421 (TC) 10 April 2025 Mr Quillan appealed a closure notice assessing income under s.415(1) ITTOIA for 2018–19, based on an overdrawn director’s loan account following BOH’s liquidation. The Tribunal found there was neither a release nor a write‑off of the director’s loan balance because the liquidator expressly did not write it off and deliberately chose not to use formal write‑off/release procedures. The appeal was allowed and the closure notice set aside; the Tribunal did not decide timing issues.

Tony John Shepherd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 423 (TC) 10 April 2025 This appeal challenged HMRC best-judgment VAT assessments that treated Mr Shepherd as principal (100% of taxi fares) rather than agent (50%). The Tribunal held HMRC failed to disclose or prove the assessing officers’ decision-making process and so could not be satisfied the assessments were made to the best of their judgment. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside both the original and revised assessments.

David Ricketts v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 422 (TC) 9 April 2025 This appeal concerned whether Schedule 55 penalties for late electronic self-assessment filing for the year to 5 April 2022 were properly imposed on Mr Ricketts. The Tribunal found he had validly consented to paperless communications, was validly notified, filed on 20 June 2023 after the 31 January 2023 deadline, and failed to establish a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the initial and daily penalties upheld.

South Crescent Trustees Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 417 (TC) 8 April 2025 This case concerned two procedural applications in an appeal where HMRC filed their Statement of Case late. The Tribunal refused the appellant's application to bar HMRC under Rule 8(3)(b) and (7) and retrospectively granted HMRC an extension of time to 28 February 2025, directing further case management steps to progress the appeal.

WG Recruitment Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 420 (TC) 8 April 2025 WG Recruitment appealed four default VAT surcharges for specified periods, disputing that HMRC's surcharge liability notices (SLNs) had been served. The Tribunal found HMRC had not adduced sufficient evidence of service, refused HMRC's adjournment request for further proof, set aside the SLNs and allowed the appeal. The decision notice was prepared at the appellant's request and parties may apply for permission to appeal within 56 days.

Media & Communications Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 418 (TC) 7 April 2025 This case concerns Media & Communications Ltd's appeal against late payment penalties (LPPs) for 2011–12 and 2012–13 and whether the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) can entertain a public law claim of legitimate expectation said to arise from a prior settlement. The Tribunal held that the statutory appeal route (paras 13–15 of Schedule 56) does not permit the FTT to determine public law arguments such as legitimate expectation in relation to LPPs. The FTT therefore struck out the appeal under Rule 8(2).

Raymond Atkinson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 414 (TC) 7 April 2025 This First-tier Tribunal refused Mr Raymond Atkinson permission to pursue late appeals against 12 tax surcharges and penalties (total £3,575.24) dating from 2012–2015, finding very long delays (over 3½ to almost 12 years) and that he had been aware of HMRC correspondence. The Tribunal held his personal and business difficulties did not reasonably excuse the whole period of delay and had ceased to do so by the end of 2014, so the late appeals were not admitted.

Refinitiv Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 415 (TC) 7 April 2025 This case concerned applications by Refinitiv Ltd, Lipper Ltd and REEL for directions that HMRC issue closure notices for 2018 corporation tax enquiries while a Supreme Court permission to appeal in related JR proceedings was pending. The Tribunal held HMRC had not shown reasonable grounds under Schedule 18 para 33 to keep the 2018 enquiries open and directed HMRC to issue closure notices within specified times, allowing broadly‑worded notices and reserving quantum adjustments to the Tribunal under TMA s 50 if the legal position changed.

Alexander Langsam v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 404 (TC) 4 April 2025 This case concerns an application by Alexander Langsam to re-allocate his appeal against an HMRC information notice from the Basic to the Standard category and to change the hearing format to hybrid. The Tribunal dismissed the re-allocation application, confirmed the appeal will proceed as a Basic case by a short video hearing, and issued directions for progression (skeletons and an authorities bundle). The Tribunal held no additional disclosure or detailed case management was necessary.

Eurolaser IT Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 405 (TC) 4 April 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC's Mecsek and Kittel VAT assessments and 30% penalties against Eurolaser arising from participation in a supply‑chain VAT fraud. The Tribunal found Mr Moshin Darr, an agent who introduced the assessed deals, knew the transactions were connected to fraud, and his knowledge was attributed to Eurolaser, which had not taken every reasonable step to avoid participation. The appeal was dismissed and all assessments, penalties and costs were upheld.

Hani Gabra & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 399 (TC) 4 April 2025 This case concerned whether Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) applied to the purchase of The Willows, specifically whether a detached Annexe was (a) suitable for use as a single dwelling at completion or (b) in the process of being adapted into one at the effective date. The tribunal found the Annexe lacked basic facilities (toilet, sink, shower/bath) at completion and no physical adaptation works had commenced by the effective date. The appeal was dismissed and MDR was not available, leaving the higher SDLT charge in place.

Jonathan Paul Padbury v The Welsh Revenue Authority [2025] UKFTT 396 (TC) 4 April 2025 This appeal concerned Mr Padbury’s claim for a refund of higher-rate land transaction tax paid on a Welsh purchase in November 2019, where he argued the property was a replacement of his only/main residence. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the required disposal of the previous residence occurred after the fixed three-year period in paragraph 8(4) Schedule 5 LTTA, and that COVID-19 restrictions or the Coronavirus Act 2020 did not extend or alter that statutory period.

The Vaccine Research Limited Partnership & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 402 (TC) 4 April 2025 This is a rehearing of consolidated appeals about whether guaranteed licence fees received by The Vaccine Research Limited Partnership (and partner Mr Vaughan) were taxable in 2006/07, 2013/14 and 2014/15. The Tribunal rejected the Appellants' private‑law argument that no licence fees arose, but on a Ramsay/realistic view held that the licence fees were not "income" and so neither s 683 nor s 687 ITTOIA applied. The appeals were allowed.

Bodrul Zzaman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 539 (TC) 3 April 2025 Mr Zzaman appealed a discovery assessment of £2,501 for 2018–19 under the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC). The First‑tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding an HMRC officer had validly made a "discovery" under s29 TMA and that the subsequent assessment was validly issued as part of a continuum of HMRC activity. The Tribunal also held HMRC had no general duty to notify taxpayers of HICBC liability and rejected arguments about retrospective law, calculation difficulty, unfairness and human rights infringements.

Dawn Kaffel v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 397 (TC) 3 April 2025 This appeal challenged HMRC's refusal to grant a retrospective exception from compulsory VAT registration after Mrs Kaffel exceeded the threshold in October 2020. The Tribunal held HMRC lawfully exercised its discretion by assessing the trader's position as at the date of breach and the following 30 days and by taking into account the absence of measures in that period to reduce turnover. The appeal was dismissed.

Nicholas Markos v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 401 (TC) 3 April 2025 This appeal challenged joint customs and excise civil evasion penalties issued after cigarettes were seized at Stansted on 16 November 2019. The Tribunal found Mr Markos did possess cigarettes in excess of his personal allowance but rejected HMRC’s recorded quantity and concluded he genuinely believed he was travelling from the EU, was under officer control and did not freely elect the green channel. Applying the civil test for dishonesty, the Tribunal held his conduct was not dishonest and allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalties.

Nicole Behenna-Renton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 403 (TC) 3 April 2025 This appeal concerned whether an annex at Oakridge Farm formed a separate dwelling for Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) on a 19 August 2021 purchase; HMRC denied MDR in a closure notice and the purchaser appealed. The tribunal found the Annex had independent access, facilities to meet basic living needs (kitchenette, shower, sleeping area), independent control of utilities, and sufficient privacy and security, so it was suitable for use as a single dwelling. The appeal was allowed and the MDR claim accepted, overturning HMRC’s closure notice and reducing the SDLT liability by the claimed amount.

Pervez Akhtar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 395 (TC) 2 April 2025 This appeal challenged HMRC discovery assessments for 2006/07–2017/18 based on unexplained bank and property deposits alleged to be undeclared income from taxi companies. The Tribunal held HMRC’s discovery (27 Aug 2020) was valid, found unexplained deposits of £220,131.83 representing deliberate undeclared extractions (so 20‑year limit applied), but accepted that some property payments were funded by third parties and that certain properties were held on trust for the appellant and his wife, allowing the appeal in part and reducing HMRC’s original case. Parties were invited to agree precise taxable amounts or return to the Tribunal.

Simon Charles Newson t/a Whirly Wine v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 400 (TC) 31 March 2025 This appeal concerned a £2,000 AWRS penalty imposed on Mr Simon Newson for carrying on controlled alcohol wholesaling without AWRS approval from 27 November 2017 until June 2022. The Tribunal found he continued trading while aware approval was required and failed to pursue registration diligently, classifying the contravention as deliberate but not concealed, and upheld HMRC’s calculation and application of the statutory mitigation, dismissing the appeal.

Bemal Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 373 (TC) 27 March 2025 Mr Patel appealed HMRC's refusal of an SDLT repayment and a discovery assessment, arguing the property "Elvaston" was non‑residential at completion. The Tribunal held the correct test under s.116 FA 2003 is an objective, multi‑factorial assessment of the property's essential characteristics at the effective date, and concluded Elvaston was in the process of being constructed or adapted for use as a dwelling despite a planning condition preventing immediate occupation. The appeal was dismissed and no repayment of SDLT was ordered.

Jian Lin v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 374 (TC) 27 March 2025 This appeal concerned an HMRC Schedule 36 Information Notice seeking documents relating to Mr Jian Lin’s unfiled self-assessment for 2018/19–2021/22. The Tribunal held that requested details of self‑employed income and deductible expenditure are statutory records for Schedule 36 purposes and so appeals against those items were struck out for lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal further found that HMRC reasonably required bank account details/statements and an employment timeline to check Mr Lin’s tax position and dismissed the appeal against those items, directing compliance within 30 days.

John Strange v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 298 (TC) 27 March 2025 John Strange appealed a Personal Liability Notice issued by HMRC making him personally liable for his company's unpaid National Insurance contributions for 06/08/2016–05/06/2018. The tribunal found there was an underpayment of NICs, that Strange was an officer (sole director and sole signatory) and that the failure to pay was attributable to his neglect, and upheld the PLN for £103,420.89, dismissing the appeal.

Laxzo Ltd v The Commissioners For HMRC [2025] UKFTT 372 (TC) 27 March 2025 Laxzo Ltd appealed HMRC assessments under Schedule 16 FA 2020 arising from CJRS claims; HMRC used RTI data up to 19 March 2020 to recalculate reference salaries and concluded some claimed furlough costs exceeded qualifying costs. The tribunal found the assessments (as varied to £80,744.39) competent and within time, held HMRC entitled to use the RTI-based calculations (fixed-rate employees: salary in latest pay period ending on or before 19 March 2020; variable-rate employee: average-monthly basis) and dismissed the appeal.

Liquorstop Convenience Store v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 371 (TC) 27 March 2025 This case concerns Liquorstop's late Notice of Appeal against a VAT assessment notified in September 2019; the Notice was received by the Tribunal on 5 June 2023. The Tribunal applied the three-stage test for permission to bring a late appeal, found the delay (over 3½ years, or at least 16 days if a later trigger date is assumed) to be serious, found the Appellant's explanations insufficient for the whole period, and refused permission to appeal. The Appellant was told of the right to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal within 56 days.

Aubrey Weis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 348 (TC) 21 March 2025 The Tribunal determined the domicile for tax purposes of Rabbi Aubrey Weis for 2005/06 and 2007/08–2015/16. It held that his father had acquired a domicile of choice in England by 31 December 1969, that the Appellant did not acquire an Israeli domicile during a brief stay in early 1970, and that the Appellant was domiciled in England during the Relevant Period; the appeal was dismissed.

Heaven Dry Cleaners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 781 (TC) 18 March 2025 This case concerns Heaven Dry Cleaners Ltd (HDCL) challenging HMRC review conclusions: a CT review conclusion dated 16 December 2019 and a VAT review conclusion dated 26 August 2021, and seeking permission for late appeals. The FTT refused permission to bring a late appeal against the CT review conclusion but admitted HDCL's appeal against the VAT registration decision (the review had not been concluded earlier), and struck out HDCL's appeal against the VAT assessment amount for lack of tribunal jurisdiction because HDCL had made no VAT returns.

Adeel Akhtar & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 347 (TC) 17 March 2025 HMRC applied to consolidate five appeals under Rule 5(3)(b) on the basis of alleged commonality between appellants, witnesses and evidence; the appellants opposed. The Tribunal refused consolidation, finding that although themes such as alleged deliberate behaviour and unexplained deposits/lifestyle overlapped, the legal and factual issues in the individual and company appeals were sufficiently different and consolidation risked unfair prejudice, particularly by tainting assessments of individual credibility. The appeals will proceed separately and parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

Rohit Kotecha v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 330 (TC) 14 March 2025 This case concerns applications to reinstate an IHT appeal and to allow that reinstatement application to be brought out of time after the appeal was struck out for non‑compliance with an unless order. The tribunal found the agent’s emails had gone to his junk folder and he failed to diarise follow‑up, but treated the IT failure as not seriously culpable, balanced prejudice and the overriding objective, and allowed both the out‑of‑time application and the reinstatement; the appeal was reinstated. Parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal this decision.

Thariw Mohammed v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 331 (TC) 14 March 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and penalties for 2001–02 to 2015–16. The Tribunal found the Happy Chip was a partnership in which Mr Mohammed received the greater share of profits, rejected that assessed bank funds belonged to others, allowed capital allowances and set the 2005–06 assessment aside as out of time, increased three years' assessments under TMA s 50(7) for Santander receipts, and upheld many penalties (with some abatements and reductions). Final recalculated assessments and penalties were recorded (with a short period allowed to correct calculation errors).

Derek Hosie v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 327 (TC) 13 March 2025 This appeal concerns the appellant’s application (15 March 2023) to reinstate an appeal he had withdrawn on 3 November 2021. The Tribunal held the reinstatement application was out of time under Rule 17(4) and that section 54(4) TMA 1970 caused the withdrawal to become a deemed settlement 30 days after notification, at which point the Tribunal lacked power to grant an extension to reinstate. The application for reinstatement was refused.

Lime and Ginger Location Solution Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 329 (TC) 13 March 2025 Lime and Ginger appealed HMRC default VAT surcharges for periods 09/22 and 12/22. The Tribunal found HMRC had proved the defaults and prior defaults so the 15% surcharge applied, dismissed the appeal for 09/22 (no reasonable excuse; surcharge upheld) but allowed the appeal for 12/22 and cancelled that surcharge because a short, promptly remedied accounting/data processing delay amounted to a reasonable excuse.

Electric Mobility Euro Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 333 (TC) 12 March 2025 This case concerns multi-period appeals by Electric Mobility Euro Ltd and others against HMRC over customs classification of mobility scooters, and case-management decisions on timeliness, stays and splitting appeals by importation periods. The Tribunal admitted late 2024 appeals in the interests of justice, split each appeal into pre‑Brexit, a “window period” and the TCTA period, stayed the pre‑Brexit parts because a pending Upper Tribunal decision was likely to give material assistance on those parts, refused an unnotified preliminary‑issue application, and issued directions for the remaining post‑Brexit parts to proceed. Some post‑Brexit parts were consolidated or stayed as directed and parties were given 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Executors for the Estate for the late Gertrud Tanner v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 328 (TC) 12 March 2025 This appeal concerned whether the late Ms Tanner's holiday accommodation business qualified for business property relief or was "wholly or mainly" the making or holding of investments. The Tribunal found the accommodation letting, despite staffed services and good maintenance, was principally the holding of investments because the hospitality was reactive, unadvertised and ancillary. The appeal was dismissed and relief denied.

RS Global Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 332 (TC) 12 March 2025 This appeal arose from consolidated MTIC cases in which RS Global and a director sought to debar HMRC and obtain summary determination denying HMRC could prove fraud/connection, and also sought summary determination on whether the domestic reverse charge (s.55A VATA 1994) displaced supplier liability. The Tribunal refused to debar HMRC and denied summary judgment for the appellants on the fraud/connection issue, finding HMRC’s documentary and other evidence gave realistic prospects that fraud/connection could be proved and required fuller investigation. The Tribunal granted summary determination on the narrow legal issue of the domestic reverse charge, holding the reverse charge did not apply to these supplies and so would not displace the supplier’s liability if VAT were found due. Remaining substantive issues proceed to a full hearing.

Brian Lynch v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 300 (TC) 10 March 2025 This appeal concerned tax assessments and closure notices issued to Mr Brian Lynch arising from his use of the marketed Caledonian QCB scheme and related Ridgeback partnership transactions. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's Ramsay/purposive and capital-vs-income arguments and upheld the Dry Tax Charge and the HICBC, and found HMRC had satisfied the procedural requirements of s29(5) TMA so the discovery assessment stands (quantum reduced by agreement). The appeals against liability were dismissed and the discovery assessment for 2011/12 was upheld with quantum agreed at £3,652,638.

Preston Benson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 304 (TC) 10 March 2025 This case concerns two applications by Mr Preston Benson: to be added or substituted as appellant in a VAT notice of refusal (NOR) appeal that Peckham Levels Ltd (PLL) had withdrawn, and for permission under s.49 TMA to notify a late appeal against a joint PAYE/NICs NOR. The Tribunal held PLL’s VAT NOR was properly issued to PLL alone, PLL’s unopposed withdrawal operated (under VATA s.85(4)) to uphold HMRC’s decision so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to add or substitute Mr Benson, and refused permission for the c.7‑month late PAYE/NICs appeal after finding the delay serious and the public interest and prejudice to HMRC outweighed Mr Benson’s reasons.

Promeridian Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 296 (TC) 7 March 2025 Promeridian Services Ltd, a VAT-registered company whose sole director and shareholder was Mr Marian, had all labour supplied by TCS, a supplier that committed VAT fraud. HMRC denied c.£559,896 of input tax, deregistered Promeridian, imposed a company penalty and served a personal liability notice on Mr Marian; the Tribunal found that, while two of HMRC's ten alleged indicators (prior contact between Mr Marian and TCS’s director and basic invoice errors) were significant, overall Promeridian did not know and should not have known its transactions were connected to VAT fraud. The Tribunal allowed Promeridian’s appeals against the input tax denial, deregistration and company penalty, with the personal liability finding following from those conclusions.

Valesca Valentina Yvette Louwman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 295 (TC) 7 March 2025 This Tribunal considered whether offshore income gains (OIGs) and accrued income profits (AIPs) arising in offshore trusts/companies were "protected foreign source income" (PFSI) under s721A ITA for a settlor who became deemed UK‑domiciled from 6 April 2018, and whether the statutory definition should be rectified. It held that the OIGs and AIPs were not "relevant foreign income" for a UK‑domiciled individual and therefore were not PFSI, and refused the appellant's plea for rectification of s721A. The appeals against the three closure notices were dismissed.

Afshin Sajedi & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 297 (TC) 6 March 2025 This consolidated appeal concerned SDLT repayment claims linked to replacement-main-residence relief for two purchases made in May–June 2017. The Tribunal held that FA 2018 Sch 11 para 16 (the commencement provision) operates by reference to the land transaction on which SDLT is computed, so para 3(7)(ba) did not apply to the New Property purchases made before 22 November 2017, and on the substantive issue the appellants failed to prove on the balance of probabilities that they had effected real‑world disposals of a "major interest" in their existing properties. The appeals were dismissed and HMRC’s closure notices upheld.

Leonard Toye v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 301 (TC) 6 March 2025 This appeal challenges a personal liability notice (PLN) issued to Mr Toye as a director of Black Wolf Ltd for alleged deliberate inaccuracies in VAT returns (02/19–11/21) mainly concerning motorbikes and double‑glazing input VAT claims. The tribunal preferred Mr Toye’s oral evidence, found those input VAT claims were not inaccurate when made, found no basis for the deliberate‑behaviour penalty tied to them, and allowed the appeal and rejected the PLN so far as it related to those claims.

Sharon Jacques (as Executor of the Estate of Terence Jacques) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 299 (TC) 6 March 2025 This case concerns an application for permission to bring a late appeal against an HMRC discovery assessment raised in July 2017; the appellant's appeal to the Tribunal was lodged 29 months late. The Tribunal found the delay (2 years 5 months) to be serious and significant, rejected the reasons offered (prolonged ill health and reliance on solicitors) as insufficient, found HMRC would be prejudiced, and refused permission to bring the late appeal.

Bolt Services UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 302 (TC) 5 March 2025 Transopco (FreeNow) applied for non-party disclosure of documents from Bolt Services' FTT appeal against HMRC. The Tribunal applied common-law principles requiring a non-party to show a "good reason" related to open justice, and granted disclosure in part: transcripts (subject to Transopco paying 20% of Bolt's costs), pleadings (Bolt's Grounds of Appeal, HMRC's Statement of Case, Bolt's Reply), the parties' skeleton arguments, the statement of agreed facts, and Joshua Ryan's witness statement (but not its exhibits). The Tribunal refused disclosure of expedition materials, permission-to-appeal papers, the exhibits to the witness statement, and the full hearing bundle on grounds of confidentiality, volume and disproportionate burden, and made directions and timelines for provision, redaction and cost contribution.

Hastings Insurance Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 275 (TC) 3 March 2025 Hastings, a UK intermediary, sought recovery of input VAT on services supplied to its Gibraltar-based insurer Advantage; HMRC denied the claim relying on the Offshore Looping Regulations (Article 3A SSO). The Tribunal held that the "customer" in Article 169(c) PVD is the immediate recipient (Advantage) and that Article 169(c) is unconditional and sufficiently precise, so Hastings could rely on it; the provision had either been recognised as directly effective before IP completion day or was of a kind so recognised, allowing reliance for the later period. The appeal was allowed in principle and Hastings was entitled to the relief claimed subject to appeal rights.

LR R&D LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 245 (TC) 28 February 2025 LR R&D LLP appealed HMRC’s disallowance of partnership losses and R&D relief after paying c.£8m under an R&D Framework Agreement; the First-tier Tribunal found the LLP’s activities were, on balance, investment rather than a trade and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also said that, had the LLP been trading, it would have been with a view to profit but the R&D payments were not incurred wholly and exclusively for the LLP’s trade (dual purpose) and so were not deductible; HMRC’s closure notices were upheld.

Sammy Garden Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 274 (TC) 28 February 2025 This appeal concerned whether Sammy Garden Ltd (SGL) was liable to account for VAT from its effective date of registration (EDR) of 9 March 2021 or only from the date HMRC issued a VAT registration number (27 July 2021). The First-tier Tribunal found the EDR was 9 March 2021 (as declared on the VAT1 and accepted by HMRC) and that SGL was a taxable person from that date, so HMRC’s assessment for additional VAT of £19,400.84 stood and the repayment claim of £2,183.16 was disallowed.

Purever UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 273 (TC) 27 February 2025 Purever UK Ltd appealed default VAT surcharges totalling £232,988 for eight quarterly periods (03/21–12/22), blaming failures by its financial controller. The Tribunal found the surcharge notices valid, held the controller was an "other person" under s71(1)(b) VATA so the company could not rely on his dilatoriness as a reasonable excuse, found the company’s internal controls objectively inadequate, and dismissed the appeal with surcharges upheld.

Tyrone Thompson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 272 (TC) 27 February 2025 This appeal concerned two Schedule 24 penalties assessed by HMRC for the years to 5 April 2021 and 5 April 2022, which together totalled £2,735.11. The Tribunal granted permission for a 50‑day late appeal but, proceeding in the appellant's absence, found on the balance of probabilities that the inaccuracies in the returns were deliberate (deliberate but not concealed) and affirmed HMRC's penalty determinations. The appeal was dismissed.

Gourmet Classic Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 256 (TC) 25 February 2025 This case concerned whether "cooking alcohols" (cooking wines, spirits, beers/ciders under CN code 2103) are "foodstuffs" within Article 27(1)(f) of Directive 92/83 and therefore exempt from excise duty at manufacture where their alcohol content is ≤5 litres per 100 kg. The Tribunal held that such cooking alcohols are foodstuffs and qualified for the exemption at manufacture when they met the 5L/100kg threshold, quashing HMRC’s 3 February 2023 assessment to that extent. Directions were given for resolving any remaining disputes if parties cannot agree amendments.

DJJ Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 255 (TC) 24 February 2025 This appeal concerned whether DJJ Services Ltd’s purchases were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion (Kittel) and whether DJJ had used its VAT registration principally for abusive or fraudulent purposes (Ablessio), for the period 09/17–09/18 and disputed input tax of £229,908. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that DJJ knew or should have known the transactions were connected with fraud, that DJJ facilitated VAT fraud and used its registration for abusive/fraudulent purposes, and dismissed DJJ’s appeals on denial of input tax and deregistration (appeal allowed for periods 06/17 and earlier on timeliness grounds).

Benjamin Hammant v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 244 (TC) 21 February 2025 This case concerns Mr Benjamin Hammant’s application for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC late‑filing penalties totalling £1,200 for 2021/22. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage Denton/Martland approach, found a 112‑day delay to be serious, and, noting Mr Hammant had agreed to paperless communications and HMRC had sent notices and email alerts, refused permission to bring the late appeal. The Tribunal recorded rights to seek permission to appeal its decision.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Saxonside Limited [2025] UKFTT 370 (TC) 21 February 2025 This Tribunal allowed HMRC’s application and imposed DOTAS promoter penalties against Saxonside Limited for failing to notify notifiable tax arrangements. The Tribunal found the arrangements were notifiable, Saxonside was the promoter, there was no reasonable excuse for non‑notification, and imposed the statutory maximum penalty of £237,000 plus HMRC’s costs. An earlier appeal point about SRN allocation was withdrawn and the director’s appeal was struck out for failing to give grounds.

Advanced Hair Technology Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 241 (TC) 20 February 2025 This appeal concerned whether hair transplant procedures performed by Advanced Hair Technology Ltd (AHT) are VAT‑exempt as "medical care" under Item 1 (Article 132(1)(b)/(c)) or as "care or medical/surgical treatment in a hospital or state‑regulated institution" under Item 4 of Schedule 9. The Tribunal found androgenetic alopecia (AGA) to be a disease and that AHT's transplants treat it but do not cure it, and for the ten case studies and four video patients the principal purpose of treatment was purely cosmetic, so those sample supplies fall outside the medical exemption. AHT's premises were held to qualify as a "hospital or state‑regulated institution" for Item 4, but Item 4 is constrained by "medical or surgical" and the principal purpose test, so the sample supplies also fall outside Item 4. HMRC withdrew its penalty assessment and AHT's appeal against the penalty succeeded.

Chris Poulton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 240 (TC) 20 February 2025 Mr Poulton appealed HMRC’s refusal to repay £9,959.84 VAT charged by a contractor for zero‑rated groundworks. HMRC applied to strike out the appeal arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to entertain a post‑Brexit Reemtsma-type claim and that there was no reasonable prospect of success; the Tribunal refused to strike out. The Tribunal held it was premature to decide the effect of retained EU law/section 28 REULA on such claims and found Mr Poulton has a realistic prospect of arguing a conforming construction of VATA or preservation of Reemtsma-type relief; the appeal will proceed to a substantive hearing.

Izzy Iriekpen v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 242 (TC) 20 February 2025 This appeal concerned a joint Customs and Excise civil evasion penalty after the Appellant attempted to import about 90,000 cigarettes into the UK. The Tribunal preferred HMRC and Border Force evidence, found the Appellant dishonest on the balance of probabilities (including deliberate failure to check obvious restrictions), upheld HMRC’s penalty calculations and the applied reductions, and dismissed the appeal.

Tenzing Wangel Lama v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 243 (TC) 20 February 2025 Mr Lama sought permission to bring a nearly five-year late appeal against Personal Liability Notices transferring company VAT and corporation tax penalties to him. The Tribunal applied the three-stage test for late appeals (length of delay, reasons for delay, and balancing all circumstances), found the delay serious and unsupported by credible evidence of incapacity or good reason, and refused permission because finality, efficiency and prejudice to HMRC outweighed the appellant’s interest.

Brett Von Buddenbrock v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 211 (TC) 14 February 2025 This case concerns Mr Brett von Buddenbrock's application for permission to give late notice of appeal against a 12 July 2016 HMRC discovery assessment. The First-tier Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland test and found the three-year delay serious, the explanations for delay inadequate, and the substantive appeal weak on the documents. Permission to file the appeal out of time was refused and the appeal was not admitted.

PBS Wholesale Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 210 (TC) 14 February 2025 PBS Wholesale Ltd and Mr and Mrs Baczmaga sought permission to file seven late appeals against HMRC decisions; delays ranged 255–601 days. The Tribunal applied the three‑stage Martland test, found the asserted failings of former solicitors (KMB) were not proven to justify the delays, noted unexplained delay after instructing new solicitors, and refused permission to notify the appeals late.

Swift Trading Worldwide Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 209 (TC) 14 February 2025 Swift Trading appealed HMRC assessments denying part of its Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) claims for its sole director/employee, Mr Raza. The Tribunal held Swift was not entitled to CJRS for 1–18 March 2020 and that, for a fixed-rate employee, the reference salary is the amount payable in the latest salary period ending on or before 19 March 2020 (here £400), so later pay increases do not raise CJRS entitlement. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and directed correction of assessments to HMRC’s revised figure (£21,483.81).

Ava Estell Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 203 (TC) 13 February 2025 HMRC applied to strike out two joined appeals challenging Notices of Requirement to give security (two to the first appellant for PAYE/NICs and VAT, and one to the second appellant for joint PAYE/NICs). The Tribunal found it had no jurisdiction to hear the PAYE/NICs appeals because no prior appeal to HMRC had been made, and it lost jurisdiction over the VAT appeal when HMRC withdrew that Notice after the appeal was filed. HMRC’s strike out application was allowed and both appeals were struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the First-tier Tribunal Rules.

Jordan Lyden v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 204 (TC) 13 February 2025 This case concerns an application for permission to file a late appeal against HMRC closure notices for 2018/19 and 2019/20 after the 30‑day post‑review period. The Tribunal found the appellant’s notice of appeal was about four months late, accepted the agent’s COVID‑related incapacity for part of the delay but found insufficient evidence that the appellant’s injury or absence in Australia justified the delay, and refused permission after balancing prejudice and merits.

Chelsea Cloisters Management Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 205 (TC) 12 February 2025 This case concerns appeals by Chelsea Cloisters Management Ltd (CCML) against HMRC decisions classifying its management supplies as standard-rated, compulsorily registering CCML for VAT, and directing it to file a long VAT return. The First-tier Tribunal held the VAT Return Direction was not an appealable decision and that it lacked jurisdiction to entertain CCML’s legitimate-expectation and ESC 3.18 enforcement arguments (domestic or EU‑law based), so the appeals were dismissed for want of jurisdiction. The FTT gave obiter findings that CCML supplied management services directly to leaseholders, those charges fell within ESC 3.18, and HMRC was not entitled to resile from ESC 3.18.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Asset House Piccadilly Limited [2025] UKFTT 206 (TC) 12 February 2025 HMRC applied for a disclosure order under FA 2004 s314A (alternatively s306A) to require that certain "corporate remuneration trust" arrangements be treated as notifiable and that Asset House Piccadilly Ltd (AHP) be specified as a promoter. The First-tier Tribunal found the arrangements were notifiable under TASR regs 6, 8 and 10 and that AHP was a promoter under s307(1)(a)(iii), refused HMRC's late-document application, and made the s314A order. The Tribunal treated the arrangements as enabling a tax advantage whose main benefit was tax advantage and as standardised, confidential, fee-bearing products implemented using common documentation.

Quantum House Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 117 (TC) 6 February 2025 This case concerned whether imported roller banner stands (RBSs) without banners were classifiable as furniture under CN heading 9403 (0% duty) or as aluminium articles under heading 7616 (6% duty), and whether HMRC validly issued a C18 demand to Quantum House Holdings Ltd (QHH). The Tribunal found the incomplete RBSs were not furniture but “another article of aluminium” (heading 7616), upheld HMRC’s reliance on the CNEN and BTI from 31 August 2018, and concluded QHH was the correct declarant/debtor (or estopped from denying liability). QHH’s appeal was dismissed and the C18 demand upheld.

Saajid Cockar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 303 (TC) 6 February 2025 This appeal challenged Schedule 55 penalties of £1,300 for late filing the 2021/22 self‑assessment return. The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant’s absence, found HMRC had sent a notice to file (based on a Return Summary together with contemporaneous SA caller notes and address records), rejected the appellant’s asserted reasonable excuse and refused special reduction, and dismissed the appeal. Permission to apply for permission to appeal was preserved.

Applied Nutrition Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 97 (TC) 3 February 2025 Applied Nutrition imported a product described as maltodextrin and HMRC reclassified it to a Chapter 17 heading (17 02 90 50 00), issuing post-clearance demands which the appellant challenged. The tribunal held it has jurisdiction to hear the challenge but concluded the appeal cannot succeed unless independent chemical analysis shows the product’s dextrose equivalent (DE) was ≤10%; if DE >10% (as earlier conceded by Grant Thornton), the correct classification is under Chapter 17. The tribunal directed the appeal be struck out in 60 days unless the appellant supplies prima facie chemical evidence of DE ≤10%, in which case the matter will proceed to trial.

The Executors of the Estate of the Late William Edward Cook v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 95 (TC) 3 February 2025 This First-tier Tribunal considered whether to allow a late appeal against HMRC’s determination denying Business Property Relief (BPR) on 242,192 shares. The Tribunal found the 5‑month 27‑day delay (against a 30‑day statutory window) was serious and significant, rejected the appellants’ explanations based on adviser error and a proposed Deed of Rectification, and refused permission for the late appeal; it also assessed the merits and dismissed the substantive appeal as unlikely to succeed. Parties were told of the right to seek permission to appeal under Rule 39.

Bradley Strauss v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 91 (TC) 31 January 2025 This decision records the First-tier Tribunal's grant of Bradley Strauss's application to reinstate an appeal that had been struck out for non-compliance with an unless order. The judge found Mr Strauss had not complied with the order but, applying the three-stage Denton/Martland approach and balancing prejudice, reinstated the appeal by a narrow margin and gave detailed directions for a remote hearing in December 2025. The tribunal warned this was Mr Strauss's last chance and imposed firm case management directions.

Sarabande v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 93 (TC) 30 January 2025 Sarabande (SB) appealed HMRC's disallowance of input VAT and a best‑judgment assessment which treated SB as having made an exempt supply of a licence to occupy land to its subsidiary SIL. The Tribunal found there was no transfer of a proprietary right of occupation to SIL, and on the balance of probabilities SB supplied the integrated "Accelerator Programme" directly to artists (a supply more than a passive letting). HMRC's disallowance and assessment based on an exempt supply to SIL were therefore invalid and the appeal was allowed in principle; the Tribunal did not quantify recoverable input tax.

The Jerk Yard Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 94 (TC) 30 January 2025 The Jerk Yard Limited appealed a £424.98 Schedule 26 VAT penalty for late payment of the 07/23 VAT return. The Tribunal found the penalty was properly assessed and notified, rejected the appellant’s claim of a reasonable excuse (including delay in registration/repayment processing), and, despite finding HMRC’s explanation on special circumstances procedurally flawed, concluded there were no special circumstances warranting any reduction. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty stands.

Xcel Consult Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 96 (TC) 30 January 2025 Xcel Consult Ltd appealed against HMRC VAT default surcharges but applied for permission out of time; the First-tier Tribunal refused permission because the delay (over five months against a 30‑day statutory appeal period) was "serious and significant" and no good reason was shown. The tribunal also heard the substantive case and found that, on the evidence, the appellant did not have a "reasonable excuse"—reliance on the external accountant and the director's personal difficulties did not objectively amount to a reasonable excuse—so the surcharges would have been upheld.

Binoy Joseph v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 116 (TC) 28 January 2025 This appeal concerned whether a Schedule 36 paragraph 1 information notice served on Mr Binoy Joseph was lawfully issued and whether the documents sought were reasonably required to check his 2020–21 tax position in respect of earnings from Alpha Republic Ltd (ARL). The Tribunal concluded HMRC were entitled to investigate the Appellant's earnings and to issue a paragraph 1 notice, but it varied and narrowed the notice (removing some items, permitting redaction of personal expenditure in bank statements, and clarifying scope) and ordered compliance within 45 days. The Tribunal made no finding on whether additional tax is payable.

Cheema Construction Services Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 92 (TC) 28 January 2025 This appeal concerned HMRC's denial of CCSL's input VAT (periods 01/20–07/21) and related penalties on the basis that purchases from Woodside were connected with VAT fraud by identified "Fraudulent Defaulters" and that CCSL (and Mr Cheema) knew or should have known. The Tribunal found HMRC had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that the transactions were connected to the frauds and therefore allowed the appeal and set aside the assessed penalties. The Tribunal also concluded that, even if connection had been established, HMRC had not proved knowledge or constructive knowledge.

Berlin Trading Company Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 66 (TC) 24 January 2025 Berlin Trading Company Ltd (BTC) sought costs from HMRC after HMRC withdrew an AWRS refusal following BTC's appeal to the First-tier Tribunal. BTC's costs application was five days late under FTT Rule 10(4)(b); the Tribunal refused permission to make a late application applying the three-stage Denton/Martland approach and, alternatively, found HMRC had not acted unreasonably so as to justify a costs award. The application for costs was therefore dismissed and no assessment of quantum was undertaken.

David Thompson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 65 (TC) 24 January 2025 This appeal challenged HMRC's notice to file, subsequent enquiry and closure notice assessing the appellant for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2017/18, increasing tax by £1,076. The First-tier Tribunal found the notice to file was valid within the four-year limit, the enquiry and closure notice validly amended the return, and that as a matter of law the appellant was liable to the HICBC. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

Roscoe Noonan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 67 (TC) 24 January 2025 This appeal challenged a VATA s.73 best‑judgment VAT assessment for 1 April 2008–31 July 2018. The Tribunal held HMRC had exercised reasonable, non‑arbitrary best judgment and upheld the methodology, found on the balance of probabilities Mr Noonan did not keep a stock book so could not use the second‑hand margin scheme, but directed HMRC to recalculate the assessment on the basis that 5% (not 25%) of sales involved part‑exchange vehicles; in all other respects the appeal was dismissed.

Sean Fitzgerald & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 89 (TC) 24 January 2025 This appeal concerned whether an Annexe at a bought property qualified as a separate dwelling for Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) on SDLT. The Tribunal applied the multi‑factorial Fiander test, gave substantial weight to a planning condition requiring the Annexe to remain ancillary, and held the Annexe was not suitable for use as a single dwelling. The appeal was dismissed and the MDR claim denied, leaving additional SDLT payable.

Stephen Opoku-Anokye v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 90 (TC) 24 January 2025 This appeal concerned two discovery assessments by HMRC for 2018/19 (£1,175) and 2019/20 (£2,276) issued after a compliance check; HMRC withdrew assessments for four earlier years but maintained these two. The tribunal held HMRC validly made discovery assessments within time and the appellant bore the burden of proving claimed reductions; most expense and gift-aid claims were rejected for lack of evidence. The tribunal allowed limited reductions: £175 and £83.94 for home-office items in 2019/20 and £400 for a conference in 2018/19, and otherwise upheld the assessments. Parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

AAA Oriental Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 69 (TC) 22 January 2025 AAA Oriental Ltd appealed against an HMRC Schedule 36 taxpayer notice dated 5 October 2023 requiring payroll, invoice, directors' loan and expense records for 7 March 2022 to 8 March 2023. The Tribunal found the notice aimed to check PAYE/NICs (not the company's corporation tax return), that the requested items were statutory records (principally PAYE and, where relevant, corporation tax records), and that the documents were reasonably required; the appeal was dismissed and the company ordered to produce the records.

Nicholas Homewood v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 68 (TC) 22 January 2025 Mr Homewood appealed nine Late Payment Penalties arising from non-payment of APNs issued in 2015, arguing HMRC’s reply letters of 15 January and 10 March 2016 were not statutory "determinations" (they omitted that label) so the payment period had not begun, and that he had a reasonable excuse. The First-tier Tribunal held the letters plainly specified and confirmed the APN amounts and were, in substance and effect, valid determinations; his belief in their invalidity did not constitute a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the LPPs totalling £6,215.73 were confirmed.

Bryan Robson Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 56 (TC) 20 January 2025 This appeal concerned whether payments under an Ambassador Agreement between Manchester United and Bryan Robson Limited related to licensed image rights (outside IR35) or to personal services (within IR35), and whether a hypothetical direct contract would have created employment. The tribunal found some of the fee was attributable to licensed image rights and so fell outside IR35, but the remainder, when apportioned and mapped onto the hypothetical contract, was remuneration for personal services and would have been within IR35 because the hypothetical contract amounted to a contract of employment. Quantum was reserved.

Lloyds Asset Leasing Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 57 (TC) 20 January 2025 Lloyds Asset Leasing Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC ([2025] UKFTT 57 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Charlie Johnson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 50 (TC) 16 January 2025 This appeal concerned whether Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) applied to Mr Johnson’s purchase of 38 Parkland Avenue, comprising a main house with an attached self‑contained annexe connected by an internal door and sharing a garden. The First‑tier Tribunal held, on an objective multi‑factorial assessment of the physical attributes at the effective date, that the annexe was “used or suitable for use as a single dwelling” and the acquisition therefore qualified for MDR; the appeal was allowed.

Haron Mayet v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 52 (TC) 16 January 2025 This appeal challenged HMRC discovery assessments (1999/2000–2013/14 and 2015/16) and penalties under Sch 18 and Sch 24. The Tribunal found HMRC reasonably discovered understated tax from bank and third‑party information, rejected the appellant’s unparticularised explanations for large deposits, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the revised assessments and penalties (with some concessions by HMRC).

Sarah Yaxley v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 51 (TC) 16 January 2025 This appeal concerned whether Mrs Sarah Yaxley had amended her 2017/18 self‑assessment in time or made a valid overpayment relief claim such that an appealable decision arose. The Tribunal found her correspondence did not amount to an in‑time amendment and that the 6 August 2021 letter was not a valid overpayment relief claim in the required form, so no appealable decision existed. Because of that absence of an appealable decision, the First‑tier Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was struck out.

Barclays Bank PLC & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 27 (TC) 9 January 2025 This case concerns whether HMRC could amend its statement of case beyond the specific "no provision" outcome stated in partial closure notices (PCNs) issued in August 2022, in relation to transfer‑pricing/TIOPA adjustments arising from Barclays' purchases of Newfoundland senior notes (and related 2008 securitisation). The First‑tier Tribunal held the PCNs' operative conclusion was that the actual provision differed from the arm's‑length provision (so TIOPA applies), and that the PCNs' stated reason (disregard/no provision) did not confine HMRC to that single remedy; HMRC was allowed to amend its case to advance alternative arm's‑length adjustments and to refer to the 2008 transactions, subject to directions and safeguards against ambush.

Convergence Management Consultants Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 22 (TC) 9 January 2025 This case concerns Convergence Management Consultants Ltd's claim for £46,619.48 under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) for its sole director/employee, Mr Mahmood. The Tribunal held CMC did not satisfy the Directions' gateway requirement that it had made and reported a payment of earnings in tax year 2019–20 on an RTI return by the relevant reference day, and therefore was not entitled to CJRS payments. The Tribunal also rejected reliance on a prior Ocean Network salary as a basis for a “reasonably expected” reference salary and upheld HMRC’s assessments.

Global By Nature Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 24 (TC) 9 January 2025 This appeal concerned whether three powdered Sunwarrior products fell within Item 4A (sports drinks) of Schedule 8 VATA and so were standard-rated rather than zero-rated. The Tribunal held Item 4A imposes a two-stage test: the product must be a "sports drink" in ordinary meaning and then be advertised/marketed as designed to enhance physical performance, accelerate recovery after exercise or build bulk (or be similar to such a drink). Applying that test, Classic and Plus were not sports drinks (low carbohydrate content) and remained zero-rated; under an alternative construction only Warrior would have been standard-rated, but the Tribunal preferred the primary interpretation and allowed GBN's appeal.

Harbron Recruit Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 23 (TC) 9 January 2025 Harbron Recruit Limited (HRL) appealed HMRC’s refusal to relieve it from deemed CIS under‑deductions after HRL, on professional advice, submitted nil CIS returns following agency rule changes. The First‑tier Tribunal found HRL had taken reasonable care, that Mr Harbron genuinely believed the course taken was correct, and rejected HMRC’s attempt to revisit Condition A once the Tribunal had decided it. The Tribunal directed HMRC under Reg 9(5) to reduce the under‑deduction to nil for the amounts under appeal.

Igor Kolosov v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 29 (TC) 9 January 2025 This appeal concerned whether Igor Kolosov was liable to a £1,109,311 HMRC excise duty assessment after 3,602,800 counterfeit cigarettes were found at premises on 28 October 2019. The Tribunal found Kolosov had physical possession and exercised control of the goods at the relevant excise duty point and so was "holding" the goods under reg. 6(1)(b); his lack of knowledge, ownership or financial means did not absolve him. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

Lautoka Vintage Ltd v The Director for Border Revenue [2025] UKFTT 25 (TC) 9 January 2025 This appeal concerned 85 packages of branded clothing seized at Heathrow and the Respondent’s refusal to restore them pending proof of ownership. The Tribunal held that a general restoration policy requiring evidence linking a claimant to the specific seized goods is not unreasonable or disproportionate, and found the Appellant had not proved ownership on the balance of probabilities. The Respondent’s decision not to restore was one a reasonable decision‑maker could have reached, so the appeal was dismissed.

Mariusz Lyczkowski v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 30 (TC) 9 January 2025 This appeal challenges an HMRC civil evasion penalty of £4,926 after 10,000 undeclared cigarettes were found concealed in the appellant’s HGV at Dover. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant knew of and concealed the goods and behaved evasively, rejecting his claimed innocent explanation and inability-to-pay mitigation. The penalty was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Odfjell Technology (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 28 (TC) 9 January 2025 This appeal concerned whether Odfjell Technology (UK) Ltd was a "host employer" under the Host Employer Provisions (para 9 Sch 3 SSCER) and therefore liable for secondary Class 1 NICs for 2003/04–2013/14. The Tribunal found that Odfjell, through rostering, operational instructions, procedures (DDIs/WWIs, L4 TOPS), and onshore HR/management, exercised sufficient day-to-day control so that Offshore Employees’ personal service was made available to and rendered for Odfjell’s business. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s assessment (~£16.76m plus interest) stands.

SWG Polymer Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 26 (TC) 9 January 2025 This appeal concerned SWG Polymer Services Ltd's entitlement to Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments for three periods in 2020 and whether HMRC could recover alleged overpayments. The Tribunal found SWG was not entitled to CJRS for 1–18 March 2020 (no furloughed employees), 19 March–30 June 2020 (director Mr Glasby continued to work), or 1 July–30 October 2020 (flexible furlough required an earlier valid CJRS claim which did not exist). HMRC's assessments totalling £5,997.38 were upheld and the appeal refused.

Ramachandren Narayanasamy v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 21 (TC) 8 January 2025 The appellant sought costs under FTT Rule 10 after HMRC withdrew from an appeal about a 2013 closure notice concerning goodwill and lease valuations. The Tribunal found HMRC had reasonably believed goodwill had been agreed at £165,000 and only withdrew after the appellant's October 2022 witness statement revealed a broader challenge, so HMRC's conduct was not improper or unreasonable. The application for costs was dismissed and no quantum was assessed.

Ramachandren Narayansamy v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 49 (TC) 8 January 2025 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.

Trenbe UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 20 (TC) 8 January 2025 Trenbe applied to amend and admit late appeals concerning VAT periods 12/20–08/22 after HMRC sent several letters whose status was unclear; the Tribunal treated Trenbe's 20 October 2023 application as a late new appeal and admitted it out of time. Trenbe's separate 9 November 2023 protective appeal was not determined as unnecessary, and its December 2024 applications (about time-limit wording and sampling) were dismissed. HMRC was permitted to amend its statement of case to remove erroneous time-limit references. Directions for case management were given and parties were told of their right to apply for permission to appeal.

William David Robinson & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 55 (TC) 3 January 2025 This appeal concerned a Cornerstone-advised scheme intended to avoid SDLT on a £599,950 residential purchase by using a pre-completion subsale of an equitable interest and an annuity, two nil-return SDLT filings, and a later HMRC closure notice assessing £19,997. The First-tier Tribunal held the scheme was a tax avoidance arrangement, the subsale did not create a person other than the original purchaser entitled to call for conveyance so Schedule 2A relief did not apply, and s75 TAAR should be used to disregard the scheme transactions and charge SDLT on a notional vendor→purchaser transaction. Section 52 did not prevent application of s75, and the tribunal struck out the appeal as having no realistic prospect of success.

Mohammed Muhsen Yaqoobi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1160 (TC) 24 December 2024 This appeal challenged £1,600 of Schedule 55 late filing penalties for the 2020/21 self-assessment return. The Tribunal found the notice to file was properly served at the appellant's last known UK address, that he was therefore legally required to file, and that he had no reasonable excuse for the 375-day late filing. HMRC's refusal to reduce penalties for special circumstances was upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

The Mersey Docks and Harbour Company Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1163 (TC) 23 December 2024 Mersey Docks claimed capital allowances for £57,134,538 spent building the Liverpool2 Quay Wall; HMRC issued closure notices denying plant & machinery allowances. The Tribunal found the Quay Wall to be a distinct asset, that the expenditure was expenditure "on the provision of plant or machinery" within CAA 2001 s.11(4), and that the expenditure is saved from the List B exclusion by List C item 1, so allowances are available; the appeal was allowed.

Hugh Edward Mark Osmond & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1162 (TC) 20 December 2024 This case concerns HMRC's late service of a costs application and its application to excuse that breach. The Tribunal found HMRC had breached the service rule but exercised its discretion to allow late service, refused to stay determination of costs pending the appellants' appeal, and ordered that costs be subject to a detailed assessment. HMRC's breach application was allowed and the costs application may proceed.

P Sehgal & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1161 (TC) 20 December 2024 The appellants challenged HMRC closure notices treating bonuses as director earnings and later sought costs after HMRC changed its case and the appeal settled. The Tribunal found the appellants’ original Notices of Appeal were insufficiently particularised, that HMRC reasonably sought further and better particulars and did not act unreasonably in defending or conducting the appeal, and dismissed the costs application.

Chemidex Generics Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1146 (TC) 19 December 2024 This appeal concerned the market value as at 27 March 2013 of intangible "Product Assets" sold to Chemidex Generics Limited (CGL) and whether CGL's ten‑year amortisation in its 2013 accounts complied with UK GAAP. The Tribunal found the market value of the Product Assets was £40 million and that, despite some misclassification and disclosure failures, a ten‑year amortisation period lay within an acceptable UK GAAP range. The appeal was allowed.

Andrei Tretyakov v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1144 (TC) 18 December 2024 Mr Tretyakov bought the three‑storey "Bacon Factory" in June 2021 and HMRC assessed the property as entirely residential for SDLT, while he returned it as mixed‑use. The Tribunal found the ground floor, after substantial renovation and based on its physical characteristics and actual use, was suitable for use as part of the dwelling and therefore the whole property "consists entirely of residential property." The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's higher SDLT assessment was upheld.

FRF (South Wales) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1145 (TC) 18 December 2024 This appeal concerned whether works converting a disused Tesco warehouse into a Toyota showroom/workshop qualified for Business Premises Renovation Allowances under provisions referring to "conversion" or "renovation". The tribunal adopted a purposive construction, held that "conversion" requires some continuity of identity between the original and finished building but can include substantial alterations, and found on the facts that sufficient structural continuity existed so the works were a conversion. The appeal was allowed and the expenditure (apart from agreed car-park items) attracted the allowances.

Abdul Kadir (t/a Spice Garden Indian Cuisine) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1124 (TC) 16 December 2024 This appeal concerned a best-of-judgment VAT assessment of £176,249 (periods 04/08–01/16) and a Schedule 24 inaccuracy penalty initially assessed at £90,960.80. The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s assessment as properly made to the best of their judgment and within time, finding the appellant had not produced cogent contemporaneous evidence to displace it. The Tribunal found the inaccuracies deliberate but reduced the penalty to £85,275.75 and dismissed the appeal against the assessment while allowing the penalty appeal in part.

David Warren Hannah v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1116 (TC) 12 December 2024 This case management decision concerned ten procedural disputes in Mr Hannah’s appeals against HMRC discovery and penalty assessments, primarily whether he could amend his grounds to add a permanent establishment (PE) ground and an EU (Article 63 TFEU) ground, and whether expert evidence on Guernsey law should be permitted. The Tribunal refused the PE amendment for lack of particularity, evidential support and because it would be procedurally unfair and require joinder and extensive further evidence. The Tribunal allowed the EU (Art 63) amendment as properly particularised and supported, ordered revised pleadings and permitted valuation expert reports with directions, but refused/withdrew the Guernsey-law expert application. Time to apply for permission to appeal was shortened to 28 days.

Mercium Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1102 (TC) 9 December 2024 Mercium Limited acted as an indirect customs representative and failed to lodge a timely appeal against an HMRC decision (2 Oct 2023) and C18 demand (5 Oct 2023), filing notices of appeal 48–51 days late. The First-tier Tribunal applied the Denton/Martland test, found the delay serious and that Mercium had no good reason for missing the 30‑day limit, and refused permission to admit the late appeal.

Pocketful of Stones Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1105 (TC) 9 December 2024 Pocketful of Stones Ltd appealed an HMRC excise duty assessment of £38,626 after a shipment of gin left its UK warehouse without an approved movement guarantee and was not receipted by the foreign consignee. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the excise duty point arose in the UK when the goods departed without the required guarantee, and that HMRC was entitled to assess the Appellant as the party who had indicated provision of the guarantee. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld; a late amendment to plead theft was refused.

Shenzhenshi Wangyi Dianshang Youxian Gongsi v Director of Border Revenue [2024] UKFTT 1115 (TC) 9 December 2024 The First-tier Tribunal dismissed appeals by Shenzhenshi Wangyi Dianshang Youxian Gongsi and Empire against Border Force review decisions refusing restoration of seized e-cigarettes, mini‑mopeds and a trailer. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to re-open seizures that were deemed condemned under paragraph 5 Schedule 3 CEMA where no timely notice of claim was given, and found the Review Officer acted reasonably in requiring clear proof of ownership and in applying restoration policy. The appeals were therefore dismissed.

Blackfriars Hotel (UK) Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1095 (TC) 6 December 2024 This appeal concerned whether s.790G CTA 2010 prevents Blackfriars Hotel (UK) Holdings Ltd (BHHL) from using carried‑forward non‑trading loan relationship deficits in 2016 and later periods because those profits "arise as a result of" the tax arrangements (the BHL New Loan). The First‑tier Tribunal held that, on a purposive construction and applying a causation test, the tax arrangements were an efficient cause of BHHL's 2016 profits and therefore s.790G disapplied BHHL's carried‑forward deficits. The appeal was dismissed.

Castlet Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1101 (TC) 6 December 2024 HMRC issued third-party information notices to Nicholas & Co and Circleplane seeking documents relating to Castlet; Castlet applied under Regulation 5(5) to resolve legal professional privilege disputes. The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction because Castlet had not shown authority to act for Nicholas or Circleplane (the Tribunal requires both that the applicant take the relevant steps and demonstrate authority), and struck out the Regulation 5(5) applications. The parties may seek permission to appeal.

John Harvey & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1098 (TC) 6 December 2024 This appeal concerned whether £800,000 of donations by Mr John Harvey to a charity in 2016–17 qualified for Gift Aid and whether HMRC validly raised discovery assessments under s29 TMA. The Tribunal found the donations were not "qualifying donations" because they were conditional/associated with the charity acquiring repayment rights from a person connected to the donor (Condition E) and benefits accrued to a connected person (Condition F), and it upheld HMRC’s discovery assessments against Mr Harvey. The charity’s closure notices were otherwise dismissed but were varied to £75,000 each by concession.

London Luton Hotel BPRA Fund LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1104 (TC) 6 December 2024 This appeal concerns how to apportion a Residual Amount (£2,264,846) in an LLP's BPRA claim following earlier findings about qualifying and non‑qualifying expenditure. The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) held that apportionment was required and approved a percentage‑based method proposed by HMRC (non‑qualifying expenditure ÷ total expenditure × Residual Amount), adjusted to reflect items the FTT found qualifying. The FTT refused the LLP leave to reopen its earlier determination of methodology and gave case management directions for a further hearing to calculate the apportionment or for the parties to agree it.

Marius Karpavicius & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1097 (TC) 6 December 2024 This case concerns personal liability notices issued under sections 60–61 VATA to two former sole directors, following their companies' repeated failures to file VAT returns and pay VAT. The Tribunal found that deliberate, extended omissions up to 11/18 by both companies amounted to dishonest conduct "for the purpose of evading VAT" but that omissions in 02/19 and 05/19 did not; it accepted HMRC's construction of the 2008 Order saving and concluded it could reduce the portion of the company penalties recoverable from each officer. The recoverable amounts were reduced to £58,301 for Marius Karpavicius and £49,248 for the other appellant; the underlying company penalties were not altered.

Seth Moffett Russell & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1096 (TC) 6 December 2024 This case concerned an application for permission to notify late appeals against an HMRC Notice of Requirement for security for PAYE/NICs issued to Avenir EMS Ltd. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland/Denton approach, found a serious delay of over six months, no good reason for the delay, and that the substantive appeals were very weak. Balancing the factors, the Tribunal refused permission to notify the appeals late and dismissed the application; related criminal proceedings against Mr Russell will resume.

The Best Connection Group Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1103 (TC) 6 December 2024 This appeal concerned the tax treatment of mileage, public‑transport and subsistence payments made to temporary workers under salary‑sacrifice schemes run by The Best Connection Group (TBC) between 2012–2016, and whether those payments fell within an HMRC dispensation or were taxable round‑sum allowances. The First‑tier Tribunal held the salary‑sacrifice contractual term valid, found subsistence payments were taxable round‑sum allowances, and held mileage and public‑transport payments were not shown to be round‑sum allowances but required proof by TBC that individual payments matched actual expenditure. The dispensation did not cover the subsistence or public‑transport payments as implemented; Regulation 72 Directions were refused and most appeals failed except insofar as TBC can prove specific qualifying mileage payments. The tribunal deferred final determination on the 2013 Determination’s best‑judgment challenge to the quantum stage, expressing a preliminary view favouring HMRC.

Align Technology Switzerland GmbH & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1100 (TC) 5 December 2024 This is a case-management decision on Align's appeals about the VAT treatment of Invisalign aligners and an associated error-correction appeal. The Tribunal struck out parts of the VAT Liability Appeals that related to specific assessments HMRC withdrew, but concluded HMRC had not withdrawn the underlying decision that the supplies are standard-rated and therefore the liability issue remains live and will proceed to hearing. The ECN (error-correction notice) Appeal is stayed pending the Tribunal's liability decision.

NHS Mid & South Essex ICB v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1117 (TC) 4 December 2024 This case concerns appeals by three NHS Integrated Care Boards against HMRC assessments that payments made under CHC redress schemes, including an element described as "interest", were taxable as "yearly interest" under s.874 ITA 2007. The Tribunal found the interest element to be genuinely interest arising and either falls within the statutory definition of yearly interest or is deemed to be yearly interest under s.874(5A) as interest payable in respect of compensation. The appeals were dismissed and the HMRC assessments upheld.

IT Way Transgroup Clearance LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1099 (TC) 2 December 2024 This appeal concerned whether IT Way Transgroup Clearance LLP acted as the Trader's direct or indirect customs representative for an import of face masks on 3 June 2020, and whether a purported Direct Representation Letter displaced the indirect representative status recorded on the customs entry. The Tribunal found the appellant failed, on the balance of probabilities, to prove the existence or effect of the Direct Representation Letter, upheld the recorded Code 3 indirect representation, and dismissed the appeal, holding the appellant jointly and severally liable for the Customs Duty and Import VAT.

Aiden Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1073 (TC) 28 November 2024 Aiden Trading Ltd applied for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC’s decision to reduce its 08/22 VAT return to nil; the Notice of Appeal was filed over four months late against a 30‑day limit. The First-tier Tribunal applied a Denton-style three-stage approach, found the delay serious and significant, accepted no cogent or credible explanation for the delay, and refused permission to file the late appeal. The Tribunal treated findings from a separate Tribunal decision as irrelevant to the lateness application and recorded the parties’ right to seek permission to appeal.

Ben Everson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 978 (TC) 28 November 2024 This appeal concerned whether £165,750 of a £183,750 settlement paid to Mr Everson on termination of employment was a taxable termination payment under ITEPA ss 401/403, and whether any part was exempt under s 406 as paid on account of injury or disability. The First-tier Tribunal found the whole disputed sum (less the £18,000 allocated to injury-to-feelings and the £30,000 s 403 exemption) was connected to the termination and therefore taxable; the s 406 exemption did not apply beyond the £18,000 and the closure notice was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Lynsey Lapsley v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1075 (TC) 28 November 2024 This appeal concerned whether HMRC validly issued a discovery assessment for 2018–19 of £8,630.92 arising from an unreported PAYE refund and related Higher Income Child Benefit Charge. The Tribunal found HMRC officer Wallace reasonably formed a belief of an insufficiency of tax and thus validly made a discovery under TMA 1970 s.29(1)(b). The Tribunal also held that the October 2019 phone call and ensuing PAYE refund did not amount to a "claim" under s.29(6)(b), so the information was not "made available" before the enquiry window closed, and the assessment amount represented the insufficiency.

O’Neill Wetsuits Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1071 (TC) 28 November 2024 O’Neill Wetsuits appealed an HMRC ATaR that had classified their double-sided neoprene wetsuits as textile goods under commodity code 6113 0010 00. The First-tier Tribunal found the suits’ cellular neoprene gives them their essential character (insulation) and that the knitted textile linings serve merely as reinforcement/protection. The appeal was allowed and the wetsuits were classified under the rubber heading, commodity code 4015 9000 00.

Princes Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1074 (TC) 28 November 2024 Princes Ltd imported three consignments of tinned tomatoes in 2021 and claimed Preferential Tariff Treatment (PTT) on customs entries without holding contemporaneous statements on origin. The Tribunal found Princes liable for £205,160.02 in customs duty, holding that the company could not make retrospective corrections or rely on retrospectively produced statements on origin to validate earlier PTT claims. Because PTT had been claimed at import, the Tribunal also held the statutory retrospective repayment route (Regulation 16) did not apply, and dismissed the appeal.

Rich Couture Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1077 (TC) 28 November 2024 This case concerns HMRC’s denial of VAT input tax to four Nebhwani‑controlled companies (Saisco, Rich Couture/RC, Rich Luxe/RL, Ideal Silks/IS) after an investigation found circular trading, missing traders and defective invoicing/shipping. The Tribunal accepted HMRC’s evidence that many suppliers (notably Boski, Elena, HWings, Kos, Abimode, Andivia, Fashion Moda, No Names) caused tax loss or issued fraudulent invoices, dismissed the appeals of Saisco, RC and RL (all their claimed input tax denied) and allowed IS’s appeal only in part. The Tribunal applied “no supply”, section 26A (payment within six months), Kittel and Fini tests, and found HMRC had satisfied extended‑time deliberate‑claim allegations in respect of Boski invoices.

Simrajsar Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1072 (TC) 28 November 2024 This case concerns joint appeals by Simrajsar Ltd and Achilles Products Ltd against HMRC determinations and NICs notices for £30,000 payments made to five directors on termination of their directorships. The Tribunal found the payments were gratuitous lump sums recognising past service and therefore constituted "earnings" (s.62) rather than termination payments within s.401 ITEPA, so the s.403 £30,000 exemption did not apply. The Tribunal also found the appellants failed to take reasonable care in RTI/PAYE submissions, permitting six‑year assessments, and dismissed the appeals (HMRC conceded 2015/16 NICs were out of time).

Colaingrove Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1065 (TC) 27 November 2024 Colaingrove sought an order under paragraph 7(3) of the Tribunal Transitional and Savings (Taxes) Order to preserve pre-1 April 2009 costs rules (Rule 29) for 24 joined appeals after being awarded additional interest. The Tribunal held it had discretion to direct that Rule 29 apply but refused to exercise that discretion here because of delay, the timing of the application and respect for the post-2009 costs regime (Rule 10). The Tribunal also held it had no power to re-categorise disposed appeals as complex and, even if it did, would have refused to do so as an abuse of process. Colaingrove’s costs claim was therefore denied.

VNS Waste Solutions Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1076 (TC) 27 November 2024 VNS appealed HMRC's refusal of input tax and deregistration; VNS applied to debar HMRC from defending the assessment and separately sought specific disclosure of unredacted third‑party bank statements. The Tribunal refused both applications, holding HMRC's pleaded Kittel and alternative "no supply" cases had a realistic prospect of success and were interlinked so not suitable as a preliminary debarment issue, and that the disclosure request lacked the necessary particularity and relevance and risked relitigation of earlier disclosure directions.

Chris Hoyle v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1060 (TC) 26 November 2024 This appeal concerned whether sums received on a two‑stage exit from film‑leasing LLPs (sale of members' Capital Accounts in Jan 2013 and sale of residual interests in Apr 2013) were taxable under the anti‑avoidance provisions of chapter 5 ITA (s 797 et seq.) as income arising from a "loss in trade", or instead chargeable to capital gains tax. The Tribunal found the LLPs were not carrying on a trade at the relevant time, so chapter 5 did not apply and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal also recorded an alternate view that, if chapter 5 did apply, the statutory conditions would have been satisfied and the sums could be taxed as income, but that if chapter 5 failed the proceeds were not chargeable to CGT.

Rupert Grint v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 956 (TC) 25 November 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC's decision to treat £4,500,000 received on transfer of Mr Rupert Grint's business to Clay 10 Ltd as income under the Sales of Occupation Income provisions (ss 773–779 ITA 2007). The First-tier Tribunal found the arrangements had as a main object the avoidance or reduction of income tax (s 773(2)(b)), held that the capital amount consisted of a right/property deriving substantially its value from Mr Grint's activities so s 779 applied, and determined the deemed income arose in 2011/12. The closure notice was held to be within scope and valid, and the appeal was dismissed.

Stage One Creative Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1059 (TC) 25 November 2024 This appeal concerned SOCS' claims for SME R&D relief for accounting periods ending 31 Dec 2017, 2018 and 2019 and HMRC's discovery assessments disallowing relief as allegedly subsidised and/or contracted out. The Tribunal held the expenditure was subsidised for Condition E but was not "contracted out" for Condition D, and also found SOCS' earlier returns complied with the practice generally prevailing (pre‑Nov 2021 CIRD), so HMRC's discovery assessments for 2017–2018 failed the paragraph 45/PGP test. The substantive outcome therefore disallowed relief on subsidy grounds but rejected the contracted‑out and discovery assessment challenges.

Evancast (Kent) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1045 (TC) 21 November 2024 This appeal concerned whether Evancast (Kent) Ltd (EL) took reasonable care under Regulation 9(3) of the CIS Regulations when it engaged Langdale & Goodfellow (LG) to provide payroll/agency services and whether LG was a subcontractor for CIS purposes. The tribunal found LG was a labour agency/subcontractor and that EL failed to take reasonable care, relying on inadequate documentary evidence and no specific professional advice. HMRC's refusal to grant relief under Regulation 9(5) was upheld and the appeal dismissed, with under-deductions totalling £927,586.59 identified.

Lewis Grove Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1114 (TC) 21 November 2024 This case concerned Lewis Grove Ltd’s application for permission to appeal out of time against an SDLT assessment issued by HMRC following a 2018 transfer of a pharmacy business and a rack‑rent lease. The FTT applied the Martland three‑stage test and, despite a delay of about 1 year 8–9 months, found a reasonable excuse (non‑receipt of HMRC correspondence and HMRC’s failure to engage with the agent named on the return), accepted the appellant’s credibility, and granted permission to appeal late. The tribunal also noted that Valuation Office assumptions suggested the underlying SDLT liability might be nil, a factor supporting allowing the late appeal.

Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1046 (TC) 21 November 2024 Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust applied for specific disclosure of internal HMRC policy rulings in a VAT appeal about a s.73 assessment (originally £114,988 reduced to £13,289.25). The First-tier Tribunal refused the disclosure application, holding the appellant had not shown the documents were relevant or reasonably likely to assist the tribunal, and that ordering disclosure would be disproportionate given confidentiality concerns, taxpayer‑specificity, possible non‑existence of records and the small sum at issue.

L v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1044 (TC) 18 November 2024 This appeal concerned the tax treatment of a £388,603 global settlement between L and HMRC assessing which parts were taxable as earnings under ITEPA and which were non‑taxable compensation for discrimination under the Equality Act. The First‑tier Tribunal held the deferred/incentive elements and sums attributable to equal‑pay and termination/unfair‑dismissal were taxable (subject where relevant to the £30,000 termination payment exemption), but the portion apportioned to in‑employment discrimination (loss of opportunity/career detriment) was not “from employment” and therefore not assessable as earnings. The closure notice was therefore overstated and the appeal was allowed in part, with the parties to agree tax on the £119,200 to be brought into account.

Jeffries & Sons v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1031 (TC) 14 November 2024 Jeffries & Sons sought permission to bring a late appeal against a 2013 protective VAT assessment of £103,009; the application was made over nine years after the assessment. The Tribunal applied the Martland three-stage test, found the delay serious and that the appellant’s initial agent misunderstanding did not persist after an earlier related appeal was withdrawn in August 2016, and refused permission for a late appeal because the strength of the substantive case did not justify such a prolonged delay.

Generator Power Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1019 (TC) 8 November 2024 Generator Power Ltd appealed HMRC's decision to assess standard-rate VAT on supplies involving hired generators and red diesel. HMRC withdrew its defence after material new evidence was introduced late in the hearing, and the appeal was allowed by consent; the Tribunal refused Generator Power's application for costs under rule 10(1)(b), finding HMRC's conduct was not unreasonable. The Tribunal concluded the appellant did not prove HMRC knew or should have known the late evidence earlier or that HMRC's defence was bound to fail. The appeal remains allowed and the assessments are set aside.

Anthony Leonard Speight v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1018 (TC) 7 November 2024 This appeal concerns civil evasion penalties of £1,113 imposed after Border Force seized 12kg of hand-rolling tobacco from Mr Speight at Leeds Bradford Airport on 4 March 2022. HMRC relied on Border Force notebooks and prior seizures to allege dishonest conduct; the Tribunal found HMRC had the burden of proof and failed to establish dishonesty on the balance of probabilities and allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalties.

FC Shipping Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1013 (TC) 6 November 2024 This tax appeal asked whether paragraph 90 Schedule 22 (defeased leasing) prevented two companies claiming capital allowances on five ships because de‑risking provisions removed the greater part of non‑compliance risk. The Tribunal held that the relevant "lease" for paragraphs 89–90 included both the head‑leases and sub‑leases, that the Fortis Bank guarantee was not an excepted form of security under paragraph 91, and that the combination of the intermediate lessee (Fortis Finance) and the bank guarantee removed the greater part of the non‑compliance risk, so the appeals were dismissed.

Darren Wragg v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1012 (TC) 5 November 2024 This appeal challenged a 5% late-payment penalty under Sch 56 para 3(2) for unpaid 2021–22 capital gains tax following Mr Wragg's share sale; HMRC issued the penalty because the tax was unpaid on the penalty date. The Tribunal held the penalty was correctly issued, rejected Mr Wragg’s reasonable-excuse defence (his chosen payment terms and failure to seek a Time to Pay arrangement were within his control), found no unreasonable delay mitigation, and dismissed the appeal and HMRC’s refusal of special reduction.

Foster and Sons Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1009 (TC) 5 November 2024 Foster & Sons appealed default surcharge penalties for several VAT periods. The Tribunal found HMRC proved posting of surcharge notices for 05/21, 08/21, 11/21 and 08/22 to the company's last known business address (Oakbank) but did not prove service of the 02/21 notice; the 02/21 surcharge was therefore set aside and subsequent surcharge rates were adjusted to 2% (08/21), 5% (11/21) and 10% (08/22). The Tribunal rejected Foster & Sons' claimed reasonable excuses (covid-related business difficulties, failure to notify HMRC of address change, and a bank change without checking processing times).

Kerrie Brennan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1011 (TC) 5 November 2024 This appeal concerned an excise duty assessment and Schedule 41 penalty after Border Force found 4,444.15 kg of tobacco in a container whose paperwork named the appellant as consignee. The Tribunal held the appellant was "holding" (or alternatively "making the delivery" of) the goods for regulation 13 purposes because she had de facto and/or legal control and was named on the transport documents, and it upheld the excise assessment. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to a non-deliberate Schedule 41 penalty and dismissed the appeal.

Russell Scheef v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1010 (TC) 5 November 2024 This appeal concerned a 15% VAT default surcharge of £12,486.74 assessed for period 01/23 after Mr Scheef filed the VAT return one day late and did not pay the VAT by the due date, following a history of earlier defaults. The Tribunal found that Mr Scheef’s financial difficulties, including the failure of his other business All Outdoor Limited and related debts, did not amount to a "reasonable excuse" under the VATA for the 01/23 late payment. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge remains payable.

Isaac Aboagye Frempong v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 999 (TC) 1 November 2024 HMRC issued discovery assessments for 2010/11–2013/14 alleging undeclared income; the Tribunal found there had been a valid discovery and that the inaccuracies in the Appellant’s returns were deliberate. The Tribunal upheld the assessments for 2010/11, 2011/12 and 2012/13, and amended the 2013/14 assessment to exclude £2,110 before upholding it; the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal also granted HMRC’s anonymisation application.

Syngenta Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 998 (TC) 1 November 2024 This Tribunal decided whether a $950m intra‑group loan taken by Syngenta Holdings Limited (SHL) in 2011 had an "unallowable purpose" under ss 441–442 CTA 2009. Relying primarily on contemporaneous documents, the Tribunal found the SHL directors' sole (and main) purpose in entering the loan was to obtain a UK tax advantage and disallowed all interest debits; SHL's appeal was dismissed.

Euro London Appointments Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 996 (TC) 31 October 2024 Euro London Appointments appealed HMRC assessments seeking repayment of CJRS grants for three employees. The Tribunal found two claims ineligible because RTI payroll notifications were submitted after the statutory qualifying date (19 March 2020), accepted HMRC’s concession that the third employee was eligible, and dismissed Euro’s legitimate expectation/public law argument as outside the Tribunal’s remit (and in any event not made out). The assessment was varied to £16,743.42 and the appeal otherwise dismissed.

Paul Needham v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 994 (TC) 31 October 2024 This case concerns Mr Paul Needham’s application for permission to admit an out‑of‑time appeal against HMRC late filing penalties, surcharges, determinations and interest. The First‑tier Tribunal applied the Martland three‑stage approach and refused permission, principally because the delay (about ten years) was very long and the explanations did not satisfactorily account for the delay; the Tribunal also concluded it had no jurisdiction to hear appeals against HMRC determinations or interest. Permission to admit the late appeal was refused and parts lacking a statutory right of appeal were to be struck out.

Sinter Site Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 995 (TC) 31 October 2024 Sinter Site Services Ltd appealed HMRC assessments seeking recovery of alleged overclaimed CJRS payments. The tribunal found the employees were variable-rate workers and that reference salary must be calculated under Paragraph 7.2 using amounts actually paid in the reference periods; agreed but unpaid future wage increases could not be relied on. HMRC's assessments for £87,958.82 were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

The Wool House Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 997 (TC) 30 October 2024 The Wool House Ltd appealed HMRC's closure notice and assessments seeking recovery of a provisionally paid SDLT multiple dwellings relief refund. The Tribunal held the provisional refund did not discharge HMRC's power to issue a closure notice and that an assessment was made when HMRC entered the charge into its internal computer system on 11 January 2022. Para.13(1) of Schedule 11A FA 2003 was construed as a 30‑day backstop for giving effect to an assessment rather than a prohibition on earlier assessments, and the appeal was dismissed.

Easy Work Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 969 (TC) 29 October 2024 This case concerns HMRC’s denial of input VAT, deregistration of traders, and a s.69C penalty, based on findings that a closed network of largely fictitious supplies was organised by Mr Beckford (APAS) to generate fraudulent VAT repayment claims. The First‑tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Mr Beckford was the architect/administrator of the scheme, that the three remaining appellants (Easy Work, Pricerite, APAS) knew or should have known their transactions were connected to fraud, and accordingly upheld denial of input VAT and deregistration; the s.69C penalty against APAS was sustained but modestly reduced.

The Best Connection Group Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 846 (TC) 25 October 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC's very late application to amend their Consolidated Respondents' Statement of Case in appeals about a salary-sacrifice BSS scheme and related NIC/tax determinations, together with related applications (a second witness statement, transcript and remote observers) and directions on costs following consolidation. The Tribunal refused HMRC's amendment as very late with no satisfactory explanation and prejudice to the Appellant, granted HMRC permission to rely on a second witness statement and to fund a transcript and remote observers, and issued detailed apportionment directions on costs following consolidation.

Benjamin Packman & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 954 (TC) 24 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether an Annexe forming part of a semi‑detached property was "suitable for use as a single dwelling" at completion so as to qualify for Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR). The Tribunal found on a multi‑factorial, objective assessment that the Annexe met basic domestic needs (bedroom, kitchen, washing, heating, separate boiler/fusebox/stopcock) and provided sufficient privacy, self‑sufficiency and security to be a dwelling for occupiers generally. Administrative shortcomings (no separate title, meters, postal address or planning permission) carried little weight in the circumstances. The appeal was allowed and HMRC’s closure notices were reduced by £13,000 to restore the MDR claimed.

Equity Advisory Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 953 (TC) 24 October 2024 This case concerns a c.£4,367,496 payment made in September 2017 that HMRC characterised as taxable employment earnings. The Tribunal found the payment arose from Mr Mellor's services under a Consultancy Agreement with Equity Advisory Limited (EAL), that a subsequent purported assignment to Mr Mellor had no operative effect, and that PAYE and NICs were therefore due from EAL; the appeals were dismissed. Quantified liabilities included PAYE of £1,954,387.95 and NICs of £693,747.34.

Ghenadie Bejan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 950 (TC) 24 October 2024 This appeal challenged a personal liability notice (PLN) issued to Mr Bejan under para 19 Schedule 24 FA 2007 on grounds of non‑receipt and lack of English comprehension, and sought to bring the appeal late. The Tribunal found the PLNs were properly addressed and posted and therefore deemed served, rejected the Article 6/translation complaint because HMRC could assume English comprehension and reliance on professional advisers was reasonable, and refused permission to admit the late appeal as the delay was substantial and unexplained.

Michael Burne v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 945 (TC) 24 October 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC decisions transferring PAYE liability to Mr Burne under Regulation 72(5), a s.8 NIC notice and a discovery assessment arising after Carbon Managed Services Ltd entered creditors' administration and an unexplained large M9 RTI submission. The tribunal found there was insufficient evidence that Mr Burne "knew" the employer wilfully failed to deduct PAYE (Condition B) and that the officer’s belief supporting the discovery assessment was not one a reasonable officer could form. The tribunal allowed Mr Burne’s appeals and set aside HMRC’s notices and assessment.

Procurement International Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 949 (TC) 24 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether Procurement International Limited’s supplies of goods, fulfilled for reward programme operators (RPOs) and shipped by carriers under terms arranged and paid for by the appellant, qualified as direct exports and so were zero‑rated. The First-tier Tribunal found the supplies were transfers of whole property constituting single composite supplies of delivered goods, with the transportation properly ascribed to the appellant’s supply. Consequently the goods were removed from the UK as part of the appellant’s supply and the zero‑rating assessments were overturned.

Robert Crawford v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 957 (TC) 24 October 2024 This Tribunal considered late appeals and HMRC's strike-out applications in relation to many penalty assessments for tax years c.1999/2000–2016/2017. The Tribunal found the appeals were out of time but granted permission to bring two appeals late under the Martland test, rejected HMRC’s contention that an Unless Order automatically struck the appeals out because the May 2023 Documents (with qualifications and explanation) complied with Direction 1(c), and made case management directions including disclosure of the DAS allocation and an agreed list of live penalties. The appellant is precluded from challenging specified line items.

Shadi Fardjadnia v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 958 (TC) 24 October 2024 This appeal challenged HMRC’s penalties for late filing of the appellant’s 2021/22 self-assessment return; HMRC’s records showed the return was not recorded until 12 October 2023 whereas the appellant said she filed before the 31 January 2023 deadline but had no submission receipt. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities the return was not submitted by the deadline, that the appellant’s honest but mistaken belief she had filed was not objectively reasonable, and that any reasonable excuse had ended and was not remedied without unreasonable delay. The appeal was dismissed and the prescribed penalties totaling £1,300 were upheld.

The Executors of Keith Denis Lewis Beresford (Deceased) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 952 (TC) 24 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether Ninecourt Limited’s business of operating serviced office space at 16 High Holborn was “wholly or mainly” the making or holding of investments for IHT Business Property Relief (BPR) purposes. The Tribunal found that the facility fee charged for occupation (despite ancillary services provided by Orega under an agency/management arrangement) was income from making or holding investments and, viewed in the round, Ninecourt’s business was mainly investment‑holding. The executors’ appeal was dismissed and BPR was denied.

Thomas Yeomans v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 955 (TC) 24 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether multiple dwellings relief for SDLT applied to a single property purchase comprising a Main House and a physically separate Annexe. The Tribunal applied an objective, multi‑factorial suitability test and concluded both parts were suitable for use as single dwellings at completion despite shared drive, undivided garden and some shared utility apparatus. The Tribunal allowed the Appellant's appeal and found the purchase qualified as an interest in at least two dwellings.

Dawn Fidler v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 946 (TC) 22 October 2024 This appeal concerns whether a purported appeal letter of 28 November 2022 against HMRC closure notices met the Tribunal’s rule 20 requirements and whether an out‑of‑time appeal should be admitted. The Tribunal held the 28 November letter did meet rule 20, admitted the appeal despite a short (two‑day) delay after applying the Denton/Martland test given postal delays and no prejudice to HMRC, and stayed consideration of HMRC’s strike‑out application for want of jurisdiction pending clarification from HMRC about related proceedings.

Stephen Ray v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 968 (TC) 22 October 2024 This appeal concerned seven late payment penalties imposed on Stephen Ray for non-payment of Accelerated Payment Notices (APNs) issued in respect of tax from two registered avoidance schemes. The Tribunal found HMRC had validly issued final APNs that remained unpaid, and that Ray failed to establish a reasonable excuse or special circumstances (mere inability to pay and settlement differences were insufficient). The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s alternative legal challenges (including that settlement required withdrawal of APNs) and dismissed the appeal.

Boehringer Ingelheim Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 948 (TC) 21 October 2024 Boehringer Ingelheim Ltd (BIL) sought repayment of VAT it had paid on supplies between 2014–2020, arguing post‑supply payments it made to the DHSC under voluntary price‑control schemes reduced the taxable amount under Article 90(1) PVD. The FTT held those Scheme payments operated as rebates or price reductions that reduced BIL’s taxable consideration and allowed BIL’s appeal, finding HMRC had not shown repayment would unjustly enrich BIL.

Collins Construction Limited v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 951 (TC) 21 October 2024 This Tribunal allowed Collins Construction's appeal against HMRC closure notices that had denied SME R&D tax relief for periods ending 30 June 2018 and 30 June 2019, restoring the claimed relief. Central issues were whether the expenditure was "subsidised expenditure" under CTA 2009 s1138(1)(c) and whether it was incurred in activities "contracted out" to Collins for ss1052/1053 purposes; the Tribunal found neither condition was met. The decision applied the reasoning in Quinn, concluding ordinary client payments under commercial JCT contracts did not amount to subsidy of the specific R&D expenditure and that Collins carried out R&D at its own risk rather than on behalf of clients.

G Goldsmith Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 927 (TC) 18 October 2024 This appeal concerned SDLT consequences of a purchase contract assigned by Mr Gia Goldsmith to his company after structural works began. The Tribunal held the company entitled to Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) and its SDLT after relief was correct, but Mr Goldsmith did not substantially perform the contract for s.44 purposes because he never took possession; however paragraph 5 of Schedule 2A treated him as the purchaser of a notional transaction and he remained liable because he failed to claim relief in a prescribed return. The discovery assessment against Mr Goldsmith was validly issued.

Abbeyford Caravan Company (Scotland) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 928 (TC) 17 October 2024 Abbeyford sold caravans where the chassis and caravan bodies were zero/reduced‑rated but removable contents were standard‑rated. The tribunal held Abbeyford's market‑value apportionment of removable contents (based on Savills valuations) was the correct VAT method and that the reduction in output VAT compared with the manufacturer's cost‑ratio method was "substantial," so retrospective relief was allowed for 06/18–03/22. The appeal was allowed and the ECN for overpaid output VAT was upheld.

Alexander and Rebecca Clark v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 923 (TC) 17 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether a property purchased by Alexander and Rebecca Clark comprised one or two dwellings for SDLT Multiple Dwellings Relief (Schedule 6B) purposes. The First-tier Tribunal applied a multifactorial, objective assessment of the property's physical attributes and practical arrangements at the effective date of transaction and concluded the annexe (Disputed Area) was not suitable for use as a separate single dwelling. The tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld HMRC's closure notices, finding an additional SDLT of £81,250 was due.

GCH Corporation Ltd & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 922 (TC) 17 October 2024 The appeal concerned whether GCH Active LLP was tax‑transparent under s.59 TCGA when Loan Notes were transferred to it and whether HMRC validly made s.29 TMA discovery assessments against associated trusts. The Tribunal found the LLP was carrying on a business with a view to profit at the relevant time, so the transfers were capital contributions (not disposals) and the assessed CGT did not arise; although HMRC met the s.29 discovery requirement on the balance of probabilities, that procedural point did not need to be decided given the substantive result. The appeal was allowed and the trust/company-level tax assessed on the basis the LLP was opaque fell away.

Michael Murphy & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 947 (TC) 17 October 2024 This appeal challenged an HMRC discovery assessment increasing SDLT after HMRC compared the SDLT return with Land Registry information and noted a contemporaneous supplemental deed purporting a subsale. The Tribunal held Officer Lewis validly formed a reasonable belief of an insufficiency and that, applying FA 2003 s 45 (or alternatively s 75A), the total chargeable consideration was £336,555. The appeal was dismissed.

Mike Lazaridis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 925 (TC) 17 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether about 40 acres of fields formed part of the residential "grounds" of Woodlands for SDLT purposes; HMRC amended the purchaser's return treating the property as wholly residential. The Tribunal, after a multifactorial assessment of use, layout, proximity, extent, legal constraints and historic use, held the Fields were part of the grounds and dismissed the appeal. The existence of annual commercial mowing licences did not, on the facts, prevent the land being grounds.

Steven Anthony Lefort v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 926 (TC) 17 October 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC's 2018 revocation of the appellant's Fixed Protection 2014 certificate after his former employer made a payment into his Standard Life SIPP on 5 May 2014. The Tribunal found that the 5 May 2014 payment was a "relevant contribution" causing benefit accrual under para.1(3) of Schedule 22 and that HMRC were entitled to revoke the FP 2014 certificate under reg.11(a). The Tribunal also held it did not have jurisdiction to grant rescission or to review HMRC's discretionary remedies beyond determining compliance with the regulations. The appeal was dismissed.

Treasures of Brazil Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 929 (TC) 17 October 2024 This appeal concerned a s.73 VAT assessment issued to Treasures of Brazil Ltd for period 12/22 after the company voluntarily registered for VAT but, following an email from HMRC, did not charge VAT before receiving formal confirmation. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider a legitimate expectation defence, found HMRC's instruction email created a clear, unqualified legitimate expectation not to charge or collect VAT pending registration, and set the assessment aside so the company may retain the input tax claimed.

Claire O'Hare v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 921 (TC) 16 October 2024 This case concerns discovery assessments issued by HMRC to Mrs O'Hare for child benefit charge years 2017/18–2019/20 after HMRC concluded she had adjusted net income above the HICBC threshold and had not notified or filed. The Tribunal found HMRC's 9 September 2021 letter (not received by Mrs O'Hare but read to her on a phone call) did not communicate a suspension of work, so the assessments fell within the FA 2022 retrospective protection and were validly made. Two earlier discovery assessments and penalties were allowed (out of time or withdrawn), but the remaining discovery assessments totalling £3,452 were upheld and the appeals dismissed.

Mary Simpkins v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 924 (TC) 16 October 2024 This appeal concerned a Schedule 36 paragraph 1 information notice issued by HMRC to Mary Simpkins seeking documents about her employment with Olympus Consulting Ltd to check possible under-deduction of PAYE/NIC. The Tribunal held that HMRC may "check" tax positions broadly (including past and then-current tax years and without a formal enquiry), that the requested documents were reasonably required, and that the notice met the formal statutory requirements. The notice was declared valid and the appellant was ordered to comply within 57 days; she may apply under Rule 38 to set the decision aside within 28 days.

Alex Harries t/a Glam Tanning and Beauty v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 909 (TC) 15 October 2024 This appeal concerned Ms Alex Harries t/a Glam Tanning and Beauty's claims for input VAT supported by invoices from Aware (directed by Marc Simpson) and penalties imposed by HMRC under s69 VATA and Schedule 24 FA 2007. The Tribunal found the transactions with Aware were connected to fraudulent VAT losses, that Ms Harries knew or ought to have known of that connection, and that HMRC reasonably refused to accept the replacement documentation under Regulation 29. The appeals were dismissed and the penalties (£66,450.01 under s69 and £15,755 under Schedule 24) were confirmed.

ABG Fibre Services Ltd v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 907 (TC) 14 October 2024 This is an appeal by ABG Fibre Services Ltd against HMRC default surcharges for VAT periods 09/20, 12/20 and 03/21. The First-tier Tribunal granted permission for the late appeal but held that ABG had no reasonable excuse for late payment because it relied on expected CIS repayments it had not received and did not take reasonable alternative steps to mitigate. The Tribunal dismissed the substantive appeal and upheld the surcharges.

The Commissioners For HMRC v Elite Management Consultancy Limited & Anor [2024] UKFTT 905 (TC) 10 October 2024 HMRC sought reinstatement of a DOTAS disclosure claim struck out for procedural non‑compliance and relied on a witness statement; the second respondent sought disclosure of documents mentioned in that statement and argued privilege was waived. The tribunal refused the disclosure application, held that mere reference to a conference or privileged documents in a witness statement does not automatically waive legal professional privilege, and directed that the reinstatement application be heard face‑to‑face by video link with timetable directions.

Amber Awan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 891 (TC) 7 October 2024 This appeal concerned late‑filing penalties under Schedule 55 FA 2009 for Mrs Awan’s 2021/22 self‑assessment return. The Tribunal held that her explanations (work/family commitments, prior HMRC conduct suggesting no return needed, and reliance on electronic notices being missed) did not amount to a reasonable excuse and that HMRC’s refusal to make a special reduction was not flawed. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties of £980 were upheld.

Ataf Iqbal Butt v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 893 (TC) 7 October 2024 Mr Butt sought late permission to abandon his original defence to a 2007 VAT assessment and amend his grounds to allege the transactions were part of a VAT carousel fraud and that no supplies occurred. The Tribunal found the proposed amended case had a real prospect of success on the evidence but refused permission to amend because of unjustified delay, wasted resources, prejudice to HMRC and the public interest in finality, struck out the appeal and refused admission of additional documents.

Brian Lawton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 892 (TC) 7 October 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC's refusal of a second VAT refund claim under the DIY Housebuilders Scheme by Mr Brian Lawton, who had earlier received payment for a first claim supported by a completion certificate. The Tribunal found the first claim was properly paid and that the second claim, for a two‑bedroom extension to an existing dwelling, was ineligible under the Scheme; it also rejected the asserted legitimate expectation and upheld HMRC's refusal. The appeal was dismissed.

E v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 890 (TC) 7 October 2024 This was an appeal by Mr E against HMRC discovery assessments for 2000/01–2018/19 and associated penalties where he had kept no tax records and made no returns or notifications. The Tribunal found HMRC had made valid discoveries, that their turnover estimates based on bank records with extrapolated overheads were reasonable and not displaced by Mr E’s limited evidence, and that his conduct was deliberate (but not concealed) so the amended assessments and penalties totalling £158,979.39 were upheld.

Sandra Krywald v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 895 (TC) 7 October 2024 This appeal concerned late-submission penalty points and first late-payment penalties for VAT periods 05/23, 08/23 and 11/23 imposed on a sole principal solicitor who missed returns after her outsourced bookkeeper performed poorly and a successor refused to rectify matters; HMRC also gave incorrect advice about opening balances. The FTT found the appellant had a reasonable excuse for late submissions and that HMRC’s refusal to grant a special reduction was flawed for failing to give reasons and for not properly accounting for HMRC’s own incorrect advice. The tribunal allowed the appeal, set aside the penalties and substituted a decision reducing the late-payment penalties to zero; central assessment surcharges remain to be adjusted once returns and VAT amounts are finalised.

Shine Business Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 894 (TC) 7 October 2024 Shine Business Ltd purchased a Purley property containing a main house and an Annex and claimed Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) on 28 January 2022. HMRC denied MDR and the First-tier Tribunal found that, on the effective date, the Annex did not have sufficient facilities, privacy or security to be "suitable for use as a single dwelling" and dismissed Shine’s appeal. The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s denial of the £64,250 MDR claim.

Marisa Lincoln v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 886 (TC) 4 October 2024 This appeal by the executrix of Martin Falzon challenged HMRC’s IHT determination that his 1/6 undivided share of Maltese immovable property formed part of his estate. The Tribunal treated an earlier unappealed determination that Martin was deemed domiciled in the UK as conclusive, found he had beneficial entitlement to the Maltese properties, held they were not settled or excluded property (nor reversionary interests immediately before death), and dismissed the appeal.

BTR Core Fund JPUT v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 885 (TC) 1 October 2024 This appeal concerned whether an SDLT overpayment arose "by reason of a mistake in a claim" under Sch 10, para 34A(2)(a) where BTR entered an incorrect Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) calculation in its SDLT return. The First-tier Tribunal (by majority) held that the figure entered at Question 14 (the outcome of the Sch 6B calculation) formed part of BTR’s claim to MDR, so the incorrect figure was a "mistake in a claim" and HMRC’s closure notice refusing the overpayment relief was upheld; one member dissented.

Meter Squared Ltd v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 884 (TC) 1 October 2024 Meter Squared Ltd applied to admit out-of-time appeals against VAT assessments issued 16 September 2019. The Tribunal found an email of 15 October 2019 could reasonably be inferred as a request for review, so appeals for periods 02/18–11/18 were not time-barred and were admitted; applications for the other assessed periods were refused. The Tribunal directed particulars limited to the Allowed Periods and declined to deal with penalties/CIS issues not appealed.

TJ Stout v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 906 (TC) 1 October 2024 Mr Stout applied for permission to appeal out of time against discovery assessments for HICBC dated 24 December 2019, having notified the Tribunal 1,183 days late. The FTT accepted his evidence of ADHD, GAD and pandemic-related anxiety as a reasonable excuse, granted permission to appeal out of time, but stayed the substantive appeal pending resolution of related precedent in the Fera litigation and gave directions for further conduct.

Josephine Mary Hayes v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 118 (TC) 27 September 2024 This case concerns Ms Hayes' application requiring HMRC to close an enquiry into her 2019/20 self‑assessment return, raising whether HMRC emails in Jan–Feb 2021 extended the statutory filing date and whether HMRC's informal information requests were unreasonable. The Tribunal held the emails did not clearly and unambiguously extend the filing deadline, that s.118(2) does not confer a general power on HMRC to extend statutory time limits (following Raftopoulou), and that HMRC had reasonable grounds to keep the enquiry open; the closure and disclosure (of third‑party tip‑offs) applications were refused.

Microring Limited v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 874 (TC) 27 September 2024 MicroRing Limited claimed input VAT of £310,184 on ten back‑to‑back silver trades; HMRC denied the claim as connected to MTIC-style VAT fraud. The tribunal found trades involved immediate onward sales, no physical movement, consistent c.1% margins, no meaningful economic risk to Micro and inadequate supplier enquiries despite prior HMRC warnings, and held that Micro should have known of the connection to fraud. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s denial upheld.

GMR Property Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 871 (TC) 26 September 2024 GMR Property Ltd bought a high‑value dwelling from two 50% director/shareholders and paid SDLT at the basic rate; HMRC issued a closure notice increasing SDLT by £77,500 under the 15% higher‑rate provisions. The FTT found the transaction fell within Schedule 4A (15% rate) because the company purchaser was controlled by connected persons who were intended to be permitted to occupy from purchase, and neither the paragraph 5 (qualifying property rental business) nor paragraph 5B (qualifying trade/making the dwelling available to the public) exclusions applied. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s amended SDLT assessment upheld.

James Greene v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 872 (TC) 26 September 2024 This appeal challenged an HMRC discovery assessment charging Mr Greene income tax on a £36,480 payment said to be an unauthorised pension payment following a QROPS transfer. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC’s officer validly made a discovery and that Mr Greene failed, on the balance of probabilities, to prove the payment was authorised. The appeal was dismissed, with the assessed tax reduced by agreement to £14,592 (no surcharge).

Lucky Eyes Ltd v The Commissioner Of HMRC [2024] UKFTT 868 (TC) 26 September 2024 Lucky Eyes Ltd appealed HMRC assessments under Schedule 16 FA 2020 for alleged overclaimed CJRS payments relating to five employees. The tribunal found no evidence of legally enforceable contracts entitling any employee to an annual salary, treated all as variable‑rate for reference salary purposes, and accepted HMRC’s revised calculations. The tribunal also held that underclaims in one monthly claim period could not be set off against overclaims in other periods, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed reduced assessments of £8,284.27 and £18,010.40.

Mark Stewart Wyatt v The Commissioner For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 867 (TC) 26 September 2024 This appeal concerned the validity of two discovery assessments issued by HMRC for 2007/08 and 2009/10 which combined trading and capital figures into single sums and thereby exceeded the tax amount the assessing officer had indicated was necessary to make good the loss. The First-tier Tribunal held those Relevant Assessments invalid under s 29 TMA because each exceeded the maximum amount which, in the officer's opinion, was required to make good the loss of tax. The Tribunal struck out the Relevant Assessments, stayed the related appeals for 60 days to allow joinder of appeals against fresh assessments, and reserved costs and penalty issues for a subsequent hearing.

Putney Power Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 870 (TC) 26 September 2024 This Tribunal considered whether Putney Power Ltd and Piston Heating Services Ltd had begun carrying on qualifying trades for Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) purposes by the two‑year deadline of 4 April 2018. Applying a commercial-substance, fact‑sensitive test, the Tribunal found that neither company had assembled operational infrastructure or begun operational activities by that date (Putney was still in construction; Piston had not finalised site-specific arrangements), so the shares were not EIS-eligible and both appeals were dismissed.

Christopher Brzezicki v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 845 (TC) 20 September 2024 This appeal concerned whether land separated from a six‑bedroom house by a manmade carrier stream—specifically an island and the stream—formed part of the dwelling’s garden/grounds for SDLT purposes. The majority held the stream and island were non‑residential (the stream being a trout‑breeding "piece of plant" and the island not part of the house grounds) so the purchase included non‑residential land; one member dissented, finding they were part of the grounds and residential. The majority therefore allowed the appeal to the extent of finding mixed residential/non‑residential land; a dissent was recorded.

Sarah Jane Turcan & Ors v The Commissioner For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 869 (TC) 20 September 2024 Seventeen beneficiaries who received 2002–03 capital payments under Mark II Flip‑Flop trusts challenged Schedule 36 information notices issued by HMRC in November 2019. The Tribunal held that HMRC had shown a rational connection between many requests and the purpose of checking the appellants’ CGT positions, ordered production of specific documents (including two Tenon presentations dated 31 July 2002 and several numbered Items) and upheld some claims of lack of possession/power or legal professional privilege for other Items. The appeals were therefore allowed in part and dismissed in part, with detailed directions and time limits for production.

Strictly Money Ltd v The Commissioner For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 866 (TC) 20 September 2024 Strictly Money Ltd appealed HMRC’s amendments disallowing R&D-related deductions and an R&D credit for 2016–17. The First-tier Tribunal found the company’s main technology project was not a trade in the period, admitted only a small £30,000 consulting activity was trading, rejected approximately £1.4m paid to Mr Falk and c.£39,000 to Burderop Bridge Ltd as deductible, refused late evidence, and dismissed the appeal, leaving HMRC’s amended assessment intact.

Andrew Quay Hull LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 842 (TC) 19 September 2024 This case concerns HMRC's application to enforce an ADR exit agreement reached after shuttle mediation recording withdrawal of a VAT appeal, reversal of output tax under bad debt provisions, and withdrawal of a penalty appeal. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to decide if the exit document was a binding contract, found the document constituted a valid and binding contract with clear, unambiguous terms, rejected the Appellant’s unilateral mistake defence, and granted HMRC’s enforcement application, refusing the Appellant’s reinstated appeal.

Visual Investments International Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 843 (TC) 19 September 2024 Visual Investments appealed HMRC assessments disallowing VAT input tax on legal costs incurred in litigation about alleged share transfers. The Tribunal found the costs lacked the required "direct and immediate link" to Visual’s taxable management consultancy supplies and, alternatively, that Visual was not the sole recipient of the legal services. The appeal was dismissed and the assessments upheld.

David Hill & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 844 (TC) 16 September 2024 This appeal concerned penalties imposed on Mr Hill and Mr McCracken for failing to comply with Schedule 36 Information Notices. The Tribunal found they did not have a reasonable excuse in relying on their advisers without taking reasonable care to verify the advice, and it upheld the daily penalties in full. The Tribunal also held that it has full appellate jurisdiction to substitute its own decision on penalty amounts.

Aramark Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 832 (TC) 12 September 2024 This appeal considered whether Aramark Ltd was liable under the Host Employer Provisions (HEP) to pay secondary Class 1 NICs for 6 Aug 2011–5 Apr 2014 in respect of workers employed by Aramark US Offshore Services LLC (OSI) and working on UK offshore installations. The Tribunal held the HEP are aimed at secondment-type arrangements where the host effectively stands in the shoes of the employer by exercising substantive day-to-day control, and that on the facts Aramark exercised that control so OSI’s employees’ personal service was “made available” to and “rendered for” Aramark’s business. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s decision upheld.

Bangla Lounge (Harborne) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 831 (TC) 12 September 2024 This case concerned two restaurant partnerships appealing HMRC best-judgement VAT assessments (and seeking late appeals against Schedule 24 penalties) based on Test Eat visits and Drinks-to-Total checks. The Tribunal found HMRC's best-judgement assessments were in substance properly based on material and applied honestly and reasonably, dismissed applications to amend grounds to argue time-bar and to admit late penalty appeals, reduced the First Appellant's assessment only to reflect an adjusted Test Eat customer count, and upheld the Second Appellant's assessment as revised by HMRC.

Dimitrakis G Demetriou & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 830 (TC) 12 September 2024 This appeal concerned whether Mrs Pearce’s wild fishery business qualified for Inheritance Tax Business Relief or whether it "consisted wholly or mainly of making or holding investments" under s.105(3) IHTA 1984. The Tribunal found that, despite active maintenance, conservation and some customer-facing activities, the business was mainly the holding of income‑producing land and so amounted to making or holding investments. The appeal was dismissed and Business Relief was refused for the claimed portions of the residence and riverland.

Dominion World Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 828 (TC) 12 September 2024 This appeal challenged an HMRC VAT assessment for 07/14–01/16, originally produced after ADR and later revised to £5,387.10, with disputes about HMRC's use of "best judgment", a 15% cargo commission rate, and disallowance of petrol input tax. The FTT found HMRC based its assessment on available material, applied genuine judgment (using averages from months with records), and that corrected arithmetic/clerical errors did not invalidate the assessment. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and left the revised assessment unchanged.

Julian Lowe v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 826 (TC) 12 September 2024 HMRC issued discovery assessments dated 11 April 2023 for tax years 2017/18–2020/21 claiming unpaid tax from the appellant’s self-assessed expenses. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC had not made a valid discovery under s29 TMA because there was no evidence the assessing officer actually believed the available information pointed to an insufficiency of tax, nor that such a belief was one a reasonable officer could form; the appeal was allowed and the assessments set aside.

YBA Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 827 (TC) 12 September 2024 YBA Ltd, a car broker, appealed HMRC’s 2020 decision to deregister it for VAT and several VAT assessments alleging involvement in MTIC fraud. The Tribunal found YBA did not have actual knowledge of fraud but, on the totality of the circumstances and inadequate/ incoherent due diligence, should have known that many of its 2019 transactions were connected to fraud, dismissed the deregistration appeal and upheld most Kittel/Mecsek assessments while disallowing input tax or zero-rating only for specified transactions; a small number of transactions were found not proved connected with fraud and were removed from the assessments.

Brindleyplace Holdings S.À R.L v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 808 (TC) 6 September 2024 This appeal concerned two SDLT closure notices issued after Brindleyplace Holdings acquired partnership interests and received a distribution of property in 2015. The tribunal decided the acquisition was not a Type A transfer under Schedule 15 paragraph 14(3A) because consideration must be for the transfer itself, and found the subsequent distribution was for bona fide commercial reasons so group relief was not disapplied and s.75A did not recharacterise the transactions. Both closure notices were set aside and the appeal allowed.

Leslie Gordon v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 807 (TC) 5 September 2024 This case concerns an application by Leslie Gordon for permission to bring a 524‑day late appeal against an HMRC closure notice assessing SDLT on the 2011 purchase of Elmers Barn, where sub‑sale relief had been claimed in respect of a scheme involving an original sale plus a £1 option. Applying established delay principles, the Tribunal refused permission: the delay was serious and significant, no good reason or special circumstances justified it, and the appellant’s underlying case lacked realistic prospects (being on all fours with authority that option grants do not attract sub‑sale relief). Permission to appeal out of time was therefore refused.

Paul Anthony Haigh v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 810 (TC) 5 September 2024 Mr Haigh sought to challenge HMRC's refusal to accept a Fixed Protection 2012 (FP 2012) notice which he submitted on 24 July 2022, some ten years after the 5 April 2012 statutory deadline. The First-tier Tribunal held that regulation 4 required the prescribed form to be completed, signed, dated and received by HMRC on or before 5 April 2012, that there is no reasonable-excuse provision permitting late acceptance in the FP 2012 Regulations, and that the FtT’s appeal jurisdiction under reg 7 is limited to whether the reg 4 requirements were met. The appeal was dismissed.

Proeza Soluvel Unipessoal LDA v Director Of Border Revenue [2024] UKFTT 809 (TC) 5 September 2024 This case concerns an application by Proeza Soluvel Unipessoal Lda for costs after the Director of Border Revenue sought to strike out its appeal. The Tribunal found the strike-out application was unwarranted because condemnation proceedings had been validly commenced and were known to the Home Office/Border Force, and awarded the Appellant costs of £367 on the standard basis subject to VAT and indemnity confirmations.

Hayley Farmer v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 790 (TC) 2 September 2024 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 penalties for late filing of a tax return; the appellant posted her return to an HMRC‑associated but unusable address and HMRC did not receive it until many months later. The Tribunal found that posting to that address constituted a reasonable excuse up to the date the first penalty notice was received (14 February 2023) but that the reasonable excuse ended on receipt of that notice and the appellant unreasonably delayed in remedying the failure. The initial £100 penalty was set aside; the daily penalties (£900) and six‑month penalty (£300) were upheld.

Matthew Atkin v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 786 (TC) 2 September 2024 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 late filing penalties for 2021–22 imposed on Mr Atkin and whether HMRC validly served the notice to file and subsequent penalty notifications, and whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse or special circumstances. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that HMRC validly served the notices (supported by system and print/dispatch records and an unchallenged Regulation 6 certificate), that the appellant had no reasonable excuse (late attempts to register and contact HMRC after the deadline did not excuse the late filing), and that there were no special circumstances. The Tribunal refused permission to bring the appeal out of time under the Martland test and dismissed the substantive appeal.

1st Alternative Medical Staffing Ltd v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 788 (TC) 29 August 2024 The appellant, a nursing-staff supplier, sought to add a late "best judgment" ground to its VAT appeal based on a 4 November 2016 HMRC officer's letter; HMRC opposed. The Tribunal refused the amendment, finding the proposed ground factually unsupported, effectively attempted to relitigate matters already decided in prior judicial review proceedings, and would cause inordinate delay and prejudice to HMRC. Directions were given to progress the substantive appeal on the existing permitted grounds.

Ariston Development Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 783 (TC) 29 August 2024 Ariston sought permission to bring a VAT appeal about a £159,813 assessment issued 30 September 2020 but lodged the appeal on 19 May 2023, about 2 years 6 months late. The tribunal applied the three-stage Martland test, found the delay serious and significant, attributed the delay in part to the appellant's professional adviser, and refused permission for the out‑of‑time appeal. The decision notes the appellant may apply for permission to appeal the tribunal decision under Rule 39 within 56 days.

Barclays Service Corporation & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 785 (TC) 29 August 2024 Barclays Service Corporation (BSC) and Barclays Execution Services Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to admit BSC to a UK VAT group on the basis that BSC’s UK branch was not a "fixed establishment" as at 1 December 2017. The First‑tier Tribunal found on the facts at that date the UK branch lacked sufficient human and technical resources and comparable control to constitute a fixed establishment, dismissed the appeal, and upheld HMRC’s refusal. The Tribunal also declined to adopt a reinterpreted territorial limitation following Danske Bank and said HMRC’s protection‑of‑the‑revenue rationale would not have been sustainable had the branch been a fixed establishment.

Equity Advisory Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 784 (TC) 29 August 2024 A non-party bank applied to redact its identity, the settlement sum and any information likely to identify it from the Tribunal's forthcoming published substantive decision. The Tribunal dismissed the redaction application, finding the bank had not shown sufficiently strong or specific reasons to justify the wide anonymisation sought, though the substantive decision will be published without naming the third party. The Tribunal proceeded on the footing that the bank had standing for the present application but emphasised its discretion to refuse anonymisation even where consented.

Heaven Dry Cleaners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 781 (TC) 29 August 2024 Heaven Dry Cleaners Ltd appealed multiple HMRC decisions (corporation tax assessments/penalties and VAT registration/assessment). The Tribunal refused permission for a late appeal against the CT review conclusion, struck out the VAT-registration appeal as premature because no review conclusion was notified, struck out the VAT-assessment appeal for lack of jurisdiction under the statutory limit in section 83(1)(p), and stayed the CT-penalties appeal pending HMRC review.

Janet Bray Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 787 (TC) 29 August 2024 Janet Bray Ltd, a single-director/shareholder company, used an EBT-based tax scheme in 2010 and claimed tax advantages; HMRC issued Regulation 80 determinations and Schedule 24 penalties for 2009/10 and 2010/11. The First-tier Tribunal held the determinations were validly issued, found JB Ltd did not obtain tax advice a reasonable taxpayer would have sought, concluded the inaccuracies were caused by carelessness and that carelessness caused the tax loss, and dismissed the appeal.

Nexans Norway AS v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 782 (TC) 28 August 2024 This is an appeal against HMRC's customs classification of an undersea export cable for the Seagreen offshore windfarm that contains three high‑voltage power cores and an integrated 48‑fibre optical element. The Tribunal held the cable is a "composite machine" under Note 3 to Section XVI, has no single principal function (power and data transmission are independent and equally important), and that its essential character lies in the integrated dual power‑and‑data capability; it was classified as 85 44 70 00 90. Nexans' appeal was allowed; parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Ali Sadiq Jaafar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 789 (TC) 22 August 2024 Mr Jaafar appealed an assessment by HMRC seeking recovery of three SEISS payments, claiming he was self-employed as a minicab driver. The Tribunal found he had ceased his self-employment on 30 September 2019, did not recommence before 5 April 2020, and that the evidence (licences, insurance, bank entries, company accounts and a company bounce‑back loan) did not prove a separate personal trade. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

Ark Angel Ltd v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 772 (TC) 22 August 2024 This appeal concerned two Schedule 16 assessments alleging overclaimed CJRS payments for two employees of Ark Angel. The tribunal admitted HMRC's slightly late submissions, held that the employees' "period of furlough" began only when the written agreement required by paragraph 6.7 was met (17 April 2020), and decided that the employees were employed by Ark Angel throughout 2019/20 so their reference salary must be averaged over that tax year (subject to paragraph 7.3 exclusions). The tribunal found evidence that Kulvinder did not work for connected employers in May–June 2021 and gave directions for the parties to agree sums or return to the tribunal; limited corrections to the earlier Decision will be made under Rule 37.

Gregory Sewell v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 773 (TC) 22 August 2024 Mr Sewell sought a VAT refund of £16,093.82 for construction works to a static caravan after HMRC telephone advice that the works were zero‑rated; HMRC later rejected the claim as outside the DIY refund scheme. The First‑tier Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction to entertain the appellant’s freestanding public law/legitimate expectation complaint and struck the appeal out, while noting on the evidence the caravan had been constructed and that HMRC’s advice was wrong on the pleaded case but not deciding substantive entitlement.

Ancient & Modern Jewellers Limited & Anor v The Commissioners For HMRC [2024] UKFTT 774 (TC) 20 August 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC best‑judgment VAT Assessments (reduced on review from £5,474,249 to £5,004,595) for Ancient & Modern Jewellers Ltd (A&M) for 08/14–08/18, accompanying penalties under Schedule 24 FA 2007 of 56% (£2,802,573.20) and a personal liability notice (PLN) against director ZC. The First‑tier Tribunal found HMRC's investigative methodology lawful, upheld the Assessments and accepted HMRC's reviewed quantum, and concluded A&M (through ZC) had deliberately rendered inaccurate returns (including by "blind‑eye" knowledge), so the penalties and PLN were justified. The appeals were dismissed in full.

Josoemag Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 744 (TC) 15 August 2024 Josoemag Services Ltd claimed CJRS reimbursements for 17 employees but HMRC assessed entitlement differently after review, disallowing one employee (OF) for not being on RTI by the relevant CJRS date and reducing the total assessed repayable to £51,244.79. The tribunal found JSL had used incorrect calculation methods (misclassifying employees as fixed-rate and using wrong reference pay dates) and upheld HMRC’s recalculation except for the OF claim, dismissed JSL’s additional deduction claims (employer NICs, PAYE tax, pensions) and dismissed the appeal. Parties may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

MPMH Construction Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 746 (TC) 15 August 2024 MPMH Construction appealed default VAT surcharges totalling £247,151.18 for periods 02/21–02/22. The tribunal found the company proved on the balance of probabilities that COVID‑19 related delays in NHS payments, reduced productivity and increased costs caused unavoidable cashflow shortages and, viewed objectively with the company's attributes, amounted to a reasonable excuse. The tribunal allowed the appeal and dismissed the surcharges.

Simon Hackett & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 749 (TC) 15 August 2024 This is an appeal by Simon and Edward Hackett against HMRC closure notices taxing FCA redress and associated 8% interest paid by banks for mis‑sold interest rate hedging products. The Tribunal held the basic redress compensated deductible business expenditure (the losses the appellants had previously deducted) and was therefore revenue and taxable as profits of their property business. The 8% payments (and the RBS interest) were held to be interest (compensation for the time value of money) and taxable under s.369 ITTOIA. The appeals were dismissed and HMRC’s assessments upheld.

Sprowston Food and Wine Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 747 (TC) 15 August 2024 Sprowston Food and Wine Ltd appealed HMRC VAT assessments (fixed at £23,032) and penalties (originally higher, reduced on review) and a personal liability notice to the sole director. The Tribunal found the assessments were issued within statutory time limits and made to the best of HMRC's judgment based on corporation tax cash/bank analysis and till data, but reclassified penalties from deliberate to careless (reduced to 18%). The personal liability notice was upheld and the appeal was dismissed subject to the reduced penalty rate.

Go City Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 745 (TC) 14 August 2024 This case concerns Go City Limited's challenge to four VAT assessments and a Liability Decision by HMRC about the VAT treatment of its London Pass and London Explorer Pass. The Tribunal held the first two assessments were invalid as HMRC had not formed the requisite view that returns were incorrect when they were issued, and it found the Passes to be multi-purpose vouchers under the Voucher Directive and Schedule 10B so that supplies were outside the scope of VAT (with the appellant's contractual reconfiguration likewise placing supplies at redemption). All appeals were allowed and the assessments and Liability Decision were set aside.

Bilfinger Salamis UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 736 (TC) 13 August 2024 This case concerned whether paragraph 9 of Schedule 3 to SSR78 (the "host employer" provision) made Bilfinger Salamis UK Ltd the secondary Class 1 NICs contributor for a core team seconded to a Bilfinger Guernsey SPV between 1 Jan 2009 and 1 Apr 2014. The Tribunal found that, viewed realistically, the core team's obligation of personal service was placed at Bilfinger UK's disposal and was actually rendered for Bilfinger UK's business, so paragraph 9 applied. The appeal was dismissed and Bilfinger UK was held liable as the host employer for the material period.

Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 748 (TC) 13 August 2024 This case concerns Hampshire Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust's appeal seeking repayment of VAT paid on locum doctors and HMRC's application to strike the appeal out for want of jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that HMRC's refusal to accept the Trust's section 80 repayment claim was not an appealable "decision" under section 83 VATA, so the First-tier Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and the appeal was struck out. Alternatively, the Tribunal found that if the appeal were against the Isle of Wight decision it was plainly out of time and would not be admitted. Parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

James Winfield v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 734 (TC) 7 August 2024 This appeal concerned whether Gilboa Barn, bought for £1.8m, qualified for Multiple Dwellings Relief by consisting of at least two dwellings. The tribunal found the property comprised two distinct parts each with kitchen, bathroom, living accommodation, separate external entrances and effective internal lockable separation, and held both parts were suitable for use as single dwellings; shared utilities and single billing/council tax did not outweigh the physical configuration. The appeal was allowed and MDR was granted.

Jeneruhl Trading Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 735 (TC) 7 August 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC VAT assessments and a company officer liability notice (CLN) sent after assessments totaling £1,164,739; HMRC alleged the company entered transactions connected to VAT fraud and that the sole director was operationally responsible so the company’s liability was attributable to him. The tribunal refused to debar HMRC from proceeding, finding their pleadings alleged operational responsibility with sufficient factual detail to give a realistic prospect of proving attribution. The tribunal also refused the appellants’ request for further and better particulars but ordered targeted disclosure (progress logs and draft "means of knowledge" materials and related supervisory/policy input) and directed further case management for a preliminary time‑limit hearing.

Kingdom Travel Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 716 (TC) 1 August 2024 Kingdom Travel appealed HMRC assessments alleging it had correctly claimed 80% of furlough pay under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) at £2,000 per employee. The Tribunal found the employees were fixed-rate and that entitlement is assessed by reference to the pay period ending on or before 19 March 2020, so the correct 80% amounts were lower than £2,000; HMRC’s assessments were upheld and timely. Appeal dismissed.

Mark Glenn Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 715 (TC) 1 August 2024 Mark Glenn Ltd supplied a labour‑intensive hair integration service called the Kinsey System involving a custom‑made fitted and regularly maintained hair integration. The Tribunal found the supply to be a single service, not a supply or adaptation of a wig or other zero‑rated medical appliance, and held it did not qualify for zero‑rating under Schedule 8 Group 12 VATA94; the supply is standard‑rated. The Tribunal also held that significant hair loss or baldness in women is not, by itself, a disability or chronic illness for the purposes of the zero‑rating provisions.

Petmaster Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 718 (TC) 1 August 2024 Petmaster, a Turkish-established trader, imported 24 tonnes of cat litter stored at an unapproved UK fulfilment house; HMRC refused restoration and a review upheld that refusal. The First-tier Tribunal found the review decision contained material factual error (wrongly stating import VAT had not been paid), concluded the director was an innocent actor misled by advisers and the fulfilment house, and held the restoration decisions were unreasonable. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, quashed the original and review decisions, and remitted the restoration decision for reconsideration by a fresh officer.

TSS Fire Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 717 (TC) 1 August 2024 This appeal concerned corporation tax and penalties assessed against TSS Fire Ltd and an income tax discovery assessment and penalties against its controlling director, Mr Porter, arising from write-offs of director's loan accounts and admissions of undisclosed drawings. The Tribunal found HMRC had proved deliberate inaccuracies by both the company and Mr Porter, validated the discovery assessment despite a numeric error in the notice under TMA s.114(2), upheld the adjusted penalties (with limited mitigation), and dismissed the appeals.

Hadleigh Cohen v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 707 (TC) 26 July 2024 This case concerns a challenge to a Schedule 56 late payment penalty (5% of unpaid tax) imposed for tax due 31 January 2023. The tribunal admitted a late appeal and allowed the substantive appeal, finding the appellant was in default but had a reasonable excuse based on an objectively reasonable belief—supported by HMRC webchat guidance—that he had three months to file and pay. The penalty was set aside.

David George Davies v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 704 (TC) 25 July 2024 This case concerns Mr David Davies’ application for permission to bring an appeal out of time against HMRC income tax assessments and penalties issued 9 October 2019. The First-tier Tribunal applied the usual three-stage test (length of delay; reasons for delay; balancing all circumstances) and found the delay (over two and a half years) to be serious and significant. The Tribunal rejected the reasons advanced (reliance on an unreliable agent, COVID, ill-health and literacy) as not amounting to a good reason and refused permission for a late appeal.

Furlong Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 705 (TC) 25 July 2024 HMRC issued a Schedule 36 information notice to Furlong Services Ltd seeking various documents about receipts, football and consultancy income and agreements; Furlong challenged parts of it. The Tribunal held Items 1 and 2 were statutory records only for the periods ending 30 Sep 2019, 30 Sep 2020 and 31 Jul 2021, Item 5 was not a statutory record, Officer Jones had an objective "reason to suspect" for the periods ending 31 Mar 2017, 31 Mar 2018 and 30 Sep 2019 but not for later periods, and the notice was varied (Items 2 and 5 narrowed) while Items 1, 4 and 7 were confirmed; Furlong must comply within 30 days.

Kenthouse Properties Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 703 (TC) 25 July 2024 KPL claimed input VAT of £183,601.05 on purchase of a property, asserting an intention to make zero-rated supplies (first grants of major interests), but HMRC denied the credit. The Tribunal found KPL made mainly exempt short-term lettings, had not demonstrated a clear contemporaneous intention to make zero-rated supplies, and that estoppel/fairness arguments based on an HMRC email failed. KPL’s appeal was dismissed.

Anthony Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 702 (TC) 23 July 2024 This case concerns out-of-time applications to reinstate appeals that had been struck out after the appellants failed to comply with Tribunal directions. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that a purported 9 November 2023 email from the appellants' representative was not sent or at least was not received, and that Tribunal letters of 21 December 2023 and 31 January 2024 had been received in the representative's inbox but were not actioned or forwarded. The applications to extend time and to reinstate were refused and the appeals remain struck out.

David Marks (Executor of Hilda Marks) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 706 (TC) 23 July 2024 This case concerned whether the reduced 36% IHT rate under Sch.1A IHTA applied by treating certain appointments as advances to beneficiaries (thereby combining the Will trust and free estate) and whether a leasehold flat (2 Dorchester Mansions) qualified for Business Property Relief. The Tribunal held the will and four deeds of appointment were unambiguous and operated as absolute appointments that depleted the residuary estate, so the reduced rate did not apply, and on the limited factual evidence the flat was predominantly an investment business and did not qualify for BPR. Both appeals were dismissed and HMRC’s determinations were upheld.

Adebiyi Shonubi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 641 (TC) 18 July 2024 Mr Adebiyi Shonubi appealed HMRC civil evasion penalties after bringing 62,000 cigarettes into the UK, exceeding the 200-cigarette allowance. The Tribunal found he knew of an import limit, that his consignment plainly exceeded it, did not intend to declare the goods, and therefore acted dishonestly under the civil standard; HMRC’s assessed penalties (reduced by 30%) were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

BJ Shere Khan Star City Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 639 (TC) 18 July 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments and penalties against BJ Shere Khan Star City Ltd and Mr Saddiq for alleged omitted sales, incorrect zero‑rating and wrongful input tax claims, and related personal liability notices. The tribunal rejected HMRC's case that the company had operated a second outlet (Oodles) and found no suppression of sales at Shere Khan, so the CT discovery assessments failed, but it upheld HMRC’s disallowance of zero‑rating and certain input tax claims (BMW, fuel, Dobhai). Penalties were recharacterised as careless rather than deliberate, with increased mitigation for assistance, and the personal liability notices were quashed.

Lycamobile UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 638 (TC) 18 July 2024 This appeal concerned whether VAT on Lycamobile's prepaid "Plan Bundles" was due on sale or only on subsequent use of included allowances. The First-tier Tribunal held that for ordinary bundles granting fixed allowances the sale itself constituted the supply and VAT was chargeable at sale; ancillary services in bundles take the tax character of the principal telecommunication supply; limited retrospective place‑of‑supply adjustments are required where effective use occurs outside the EU. The tribunal left quantification and identification of some Roam‑Like‑Home bundles for a later phase.

Paccar Financial Polska Sp z oo v Director of Border Revenue [2024] UKFTT 642 (TC) 18 July 2024 Paccar appealed a Border Force decision that restored a seized leased vehicle (Vehicle 1) for a £2,500 fee, arguing the fee was unreasonable and inconsistently applied compared with another vehicle (Vehicle 2). The Tribunal found Officer Collins applied the correct factors and restoration policy, that Paccar had contractual control and had not shown adequate due diligence over its sub‑lessee, and dismissed the appeal, leaving the £2,500 restoration fee in place.

Hana Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 640 (TC) 16 July 2024 Hana Services Ltd appealed two VAT default surcharges for periods 03/21 and 09/21. The Tribunal found the 03/21 surcharge notice was validly served on the address HMRC had on record (the former flat) and the appellant had no statutory reasonable excuse, so that appeal was dismissed. The 09/21 notice was not properly served and was not received, so that appeal was allowed.

CCLA Investment Management Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 636 (TC) 15 July 2024 This appeal concerned whether VAT should be refunded on CCLA's management services to 13 funds because those funds qualified as "special investment funds" (SIFs) under the EU VAT exemption (Art 135(1)(g) PVD). The Tribunal held that from July 2014 the six COIFs met the SIF criteria (subject to AIFMD supervision and in competition with UCITS) and are entitled to the exemption; the six CBF Funds never met the supervision requirement and are not SIFs; the LAPF became subject to AIFMD supervision from July 2014 but was not in competition with UCITS and so is not a SIF. The hearing decided entitlement in principle only; the quantum of any refund remains to be determined.

Tills Plus Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 614 (TC) 11 July 2024 Tills Plus appealed HMRC closure notices disallowing claimed enhanced R&D expenditure for years to 30 Nov 2018 and 2019. The Tribunal found Tills Plus did make a "payment" to its Iran-based subcontractor for statutory purposes but that the subcontracted work did not qualify as R&D; the closure notices disallowing the reliefs were upheld, and a paragraph 52 recovery assessment for previously paid sums was overturned on appeal. HMRC was permitted to rely at the hearing on the qualifying-R&D issue and no adjournment was required.

Get Onbord Limited (in liquidation) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 617 (TC) 9 July 2024 Get Onbord Limited (in liquidation) appealed HMRC's refusal of an R&D tax credit for an AI-enabled KYC onboarding system. The Tribunal held the joint liquidators could endorse and continue the appeal so the hearing would stand, and on the merits found on the balance of probabilities that the project met the BEIS Guidelines for R&D (it addressed technological uncertainties and achieved an advance beyond routine adaptation), allowing the appeal. Parties may seek permission to appeal within 56 days.

GN Khan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 615 (TC) 9 July 2024 This case concerns discovery income tax assessments and Schedule 41 penalties relating to undeclared rental income for 2004/05–2012/13. The Tribunal upheld the discovery assessments but found the taxpayer made an unprompted disclosure to HMRC on 11 December 2013, so the Schedule 41 penalties were reduced to reflect an unprompted disclosure (62.5% of Potential Lost Revenue). The appeal was otherwise dismissed.

Laser Byte Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 616 (TC) 9 July 2024 The case concerns whether Laser Byte’s director-employee, Mr Puttock, had a fixed reference salary for calculating Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) claims and whether a reported February 2020 pay increase to £2,000 was effective in that month or was a retrospective change made in March 2020. The First-tier Tribunal found Mr Puttock was not a fixed rate employee and that the £2,000 increase was decided and backdated in March 2020, so it was not payable in February and could not be taken into account for the CJRS reference salary. The Tribunal reduced HMRC’s assessment modestly and otherwise dismissed the company’s appeal.

Aaron Treliving v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 591 (TC) 5 July 2024 The First-tier Tribunal refused Mr Aaron Treliving’s application to accept a late appeal against HMRC assessments and penalties for the HICBC for 2014/15–2019/20, finding his undated appeal was received over nine months late. The Tribunal concluded correspondence including notice of appeal rights had been sent to the correct address and the appellant was or should have been aware of the 30‑day appeal requirement; a difficult pregnancy might have excused delay up to the birth but did not justify the subsequent five months, and "life got in the way" was not an objectively reasonable excuse. Even if a reasonable excuse existed for part of the period, the appellant did not remediate the default without unreasonable further delay. The application to accept the late appeal was therefore dismissed.

Nicholas Millican v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 618 (TC) 5 July 2024 This appeal concerned whether a capital gain received in 2015–16 fell within the TCGA carried interest regime. The Tribunal found the appellant did perform investment management services and received a carried interest via a partnership, but those services were performed in respect of EPIC LLP (the partnership) not the Cheyne Funds, so section 103KA did not apply and HMRC's assessment was overturned. Permission to appeal was noted.

Bottled Science Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 592 (TC) 4 July 2024 This appeal concerned whether Skinade, a 150ml labelled "food supplement" collagen drink, was "food of a kind used for human consumption" and thus zero-rated for VAT. The tribunal applied a multi‑factorial "broad-minded VAT payer" test considering form, palatability, nutritional value, directions/use, packaging/marketing and route to market, and gave decisive weight to the product's packaging, marketing and channels of sale. It found that, although Skinade has some nutritional content, its primary purpose and manner of supply meant it was not food within Item 1, Group 1, Schedule 8 VATA. The appeal was dismissed and the product is standard‑rated.

Ibrahim Amir v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 589 (TC) 4 July 2024 This case concerns an application for permission to bring an out-of-time appeal against HMRC’s 20 July 2022 revaluation decision and a C18 demand for £28,924.27. The Tribunal applied its three-stage test (length of delay; reasons for default; balancing all circumstances) and found a 122-day delay serious, rejected the appellant’s explanations (non-receipt, caring responsibilities, lack of understanding), found the appeal weak, and refused permission to appeal late. The appellant may seek permission to appeal the Tribunal’s refusal under Rule 39.

Sofia Lorenzo v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 588 (TC) 4 July 2024 This appeal challenged HMRC assessments seeking repayment of SEISS sums the appellant accepted she was not entitled to. The Tribunal decided the preliminary issue that Babe Aesthetics Ltd would not have qualified for CJRS in respect of the appellant because no qualifying employment costs (wages shown in PAYE/RTI) were incurred, there was no written furlough agreement, and there was no cessation of all work for at least 21 days; continuation (flexi) claims also required earlier qualifying claims. The appeal was dismissed and the assessments under paragraph 9 Schedule 16 stand.

The Oaks (Gatley) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 594 (TC) 4 July 2024 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.

Zobortrans EU sro v The Home Office [2024] UKFTT 593 (TC) 4 July 2024 This case concerns Zobortrans EU s.r.o.'s appeals against Border Force restoration decisions for two vehicle seizures (Dec 2018 and Apr 2019) where large quantities of excise goods were found. The Tribunal found the operator had not taken reasonable steps to prevent smuggling (failures to seal, to check CMR/consignors/consignees, retention of complicit drivers, and inadequate contractual terms) and held the Border Force reviewers’ decisions to refuse generous restoration or to impose high-fee restoration were not unreasonable; both review decisions were confirmed and the appeals dismissed.

Electric Mobility Euro Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 590 (TC) 3 July 2024 This appeal concerned the customs classification of 29 models of battery-powered single-seat mobility scooters imported 2016–2020 and whether they fell under CN heading 8713 (carriages for disabled persons) or 8703. The Tribunal found the scooters were designed for persons with a non-marginal limitation on their ability to walk and thus classifiable under heading 8713, and it rejected applying Commission Regulation 718/2009 by analogy to alter that result. The appellants' appeals were allowed.

Roy Bevan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 586 (TC) 1 July 2024 This appeal concerned Schedule 41 penalties imposed on Mr Roy Bevan for failing to notify letting income for 2006–07 to 2020–21. The Tribunal found HMRC had proved he received rental income and did not notify; although the appellant was credible, he did not establish a reasonable excuse or special circumstances. The penalties were upheld and reduced only to the statutory minimums already applied. The appeal was dismissed.

Anna Wierzbicka v The Director of Border Revenue [2024] UKFTT 566 (TC) 27 June 2024 This appeal challenged a Border Force review decision to restore a seized vehicle for a fee of £8,500 after 121,200 hidden cigarettes were found; the Tribunal found the appellant was not complicit but had not taken adequate steps to prevent driver smuggling. The Tribunal held the Review Decision was reasonable, that the Border Force policy had been applied without fetter and that the 50% reduction was within the decision‑maker’s discretion, and dismissed the appeal. The vehicle had been disposed of before determination and the Respondent was directed to explain that disposal and any compensation options.

Elbrook (Cash & Carry) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 306 (TC) 27 June 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments denying Elbrook input tax of £1,273,739.55 for 335 purchases of soft drinks on the basis they were connected to MTIC fraud and that Elbrook (through its director Mr Amjad Khalid) knew or ought to have known. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the transactions were connected to an orchestrated fraud, that Mr Khalid knew (and alternatively ought to have known) of that connection, and dismissed the appeals, upholding HMRC’s denial of the input tax.

Martin Laker v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 568 (TC) 27 June 2024 This case concerned whether "last year of pensionable employment" in regulation C1(6) of the NHS Pension Scheme Regulations means 12 consecutive months immediately before cessation or an aggregate (365 days) of pensionable employment counted back from the cessation date. The Tribunal held that "year" means an aggregate of pensionable periods totalling 365 days counted back from the date the member ceases employment and, applying that method to Dr Laker's record, found his pension benefits rose by about 2.266%, exceeding the 2.2% threshold, so HMRC's revocation of FP 2012 was upheld.

Surat Singh Sangha v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 564 (TC) 27 June 2024 This appeal concerned an HMRC information notice issued to Mr Surat Singh Sangha under Schedule 36, TMA, seeking various documents relating to his 2015–16 and 2016–17 tax affairs. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC had open enquiries for those years, accepted officer evidence (including para 20 authorised-officer approval for older documents), held HMRC bear the burden of showing requested material is "reasonably required", set aside five items in the Notice and varied others to a limited scope, and directed compliance within 30 days (with a limited deferred compliance mechanism for part of one item).

C O’Donnell & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 587 (TC) 26 June 2024 This case concerns an application for permission to notify late appeals against HMRC SDLT discovery assessments following HMRC's 27 May 2022 "view of the matter" letters. The Tribunal found the appellants genuinely believed their agent was acting for them but unreasonably took no steps after HMRC's letter, resulting in a serious and significant delay. Balancing delay, reasons and prejudice, the Tribunal refused permission to notify the appeals late.

Scrimshaw Wealth Management Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 637 (TC) 26 June 2024 This case concerns Scrimshaw's applications for a stay of UK tribunal proceedings pending foreign (BVI) arbitration and to amend its appeal to plead the Trust was void ab initio, and HMRC's application for a declaration that Scrimshaw failed to comply with a direction for further and better particulars. The Tribunal dismissed the stay, found the Appellant had not complied with the FBP Direction, and made an "unless" order requiring full compliance within 14 days or automatic dismissal of the Variation Application.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Elite Management Consultancy Limited [2024] UKFTT 567 (TC) 26 June 2024 HMRC failed to serve an electronic authorities bundle by the 5pm deadline on 17 June 2024, breaching a Tribunal direction qualified by Rule 12. Direction 17 was an "unless" order stating that failure would result in striking out, which engaged the automatic strike‑out provision in Rule 8(1) and led to HMRC's application being automatically struck out at 5:01pm on 17 June 2024. The Tribunal held the overriding objective did not prevent automatic strike‑out, though it remains relevant to any reinstatement application. HMRC indicated it would apply for reinstatement within the time limits prescribed by the rules.

R & E Goonesena v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 619 (TC) 25 June 2024 This case concerns the Goonesenas' application for permission to file late appeals against HMRC SDLT discovery assessments. The First-tier Tribunal applied a Denton-style three-stage test (length of delay, reasons for default, and overall justice including prejudice and merits) and refused permission, finding a 164-day delay was serious, resulted from a conscious decision not to appeal in time, and was not justified. The application to notify appeals late was therefore denied; parties may seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal within 56 days.

Good Choice 2016 Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 544 (TC) 24 June 2024 Good Choice 2016 Ltd and its sole director Mrs Fang Bo Guo appealed HMRC assessments and penalties arising from undisclosed supplier purchases and a second merchant acquirer account. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC's VAT registration, VAT and discovery corporation tax assessments, penalties for deliberate inaccuracy and failure to notify, and Personal Liability Notices were justified and dismissed the appeals in full. The tribunal accepted HMRC's best-of-judgment approach based on supplier and acquirer data and applied continuity to uplift turnover across periods. Mrs Guo's alternative explanations and limited medical evidence were rejected as unreliable.

Roger William Morgan & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 565 (TC) 24 June 2024 This appeal concerned whether a constructive trust over Plot 3 arose in 2015–16 when Mr and Mrs Morgan (as directors/shareholders) caused their company to develop the plot, and whether HMRC could reasonably have discovered any unassessed gain for 2015–16. The Tribunal held that the company acquired the whole beneficial interest on commencement of works in 2015–16 (express common intention constructive trust) but that HMRC could not reasonably have been expected to be aware the disposal occurred in 2015–16 for discovery‑assessment purposes. Appeals were allowed against 2016–17 closure notices and dismissed as regards the 2015–16 protective discovery assessments.

Sarah Manzi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 563 (TC) 24 June 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and Schedule 41 penalties for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2014/15–2019/20. The Tribunal found the assessments for 2014/15–2017/18 were out of time and allowed the appeal for those years, but the 2018/19 and 2019/20 assessments were in time and upheld; interest remains payable. The Tribunal also found Mrs Manzi had an objectively reasonable excuse (ignorance of the requirement coupled with contemporaneous HMRC advice to do nothing) and discharged the penalties.

Anne-Marie Hurst v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 540 (TC) 19 June 2024 This appeal concerned whether Sortridge Manor was "used as a hotel or inn or similar establishment" (HISE) on the effective date (12 August 2021) for SDLT purposes, and alternatively whether a meadow formed part of the dwelling's grounds or was commercial agricultural land. After a multifactorial factual assessment the tribunal found the previous owners had operated the manor as an HISE (by the finest of margins) and that the meadow use was a barter, not commercial. The appellant's non-residential SDLT self-assessment (Table B) was upheld and the appeal allowed.

Farshad Khalili-Motlagh t/a Borge Restaurant v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 541 (TC) 19 June 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments recovering alleged CJRS overpayments, with the appellant disputing £2,810.08 of the total. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant's contemporaneous evidence established higher reference salaries for three employees than HMRC's RTI figures and allowed the appeal to that extent. The Tribunal also held that RTI figures are not necessarily definitive for quantifying CJRS payments under paragraph 7.2.

Jelly Vine Productions Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 562 (TC) 19 June 2024 Jelly Vine Productions Ltd challenged HMRC determinations and notices as premature, arguing the issuing officers lacked requisite belief/knowledge. The Tribunal held that the validity challenge was not a suitable standalone preliminary issue because it is intertwined with the substantive factual evidence on employment status and liability. The application for a preliminary issues hearing was refused and the appeal was directed to a single substantive hearing dealing with all grounds.

John Douglas Wardle v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 543 (TC) 19 June 2024 This appeal concerned whether Biomass UK No.1 LLP was a "business" under s.169S(1) TCGA at the relevant date (28 February 2018) so that the seller, Mr Wardle, could claim Entrepreneurs' Relief on disposal. The Tribunal applied the Mansell three-step "operational activities" test, found the LLP had been set up to the extent required and had begun operational activities by that date, and allowed the appeal, granting Entrepreneurs' Relief.

Pipsquid Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 546 (TC) 19 June 2024 Pipsquid Ltd appealed HMRC’s Schedule 16 assessment recovering £45,361.55 of CJRS payments for four employees where RTI returns were filed after the dates required by the First Direction. The Tribunal held Pipsquid did not meet the First Direction’s RTI reporting condition for £39,785.74 of claims and so was not entitled to those payments, declined to allow public law fairness or legitimate expectation arguments to override the Direction, but accepted HMRC’s concession that £5,575.81 met Fifth Direction conditions and reduced the assessment accordingly.

Lancer Scott Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 545 (TC) 17 June 2024 This appeal concerned denial by HMRC of input VAT of £551,695 and related penalties after Lancer Scott Ltd paid about £3.9m into bank accounts controlled by Wilfred Folwell, later convicted of money‑laundering. The First‑tier Tribunal held HMRC’s assessments were issued within time, found the VAT loss was brought about fraudulently, at least one director (Mrs Hosier) knew of the fraud (and Bagley likely knew or acted under Hosier’s influence), and upheld the penalty assessments. The appeals against assessment and penalties were dismissed.

Martin Horsler v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 561 (TC) 17 June 2024 This appeal concerned Schedule 36 information‑notice penalties imposed on Martin Horsler for failing to provide documents about an outstanding loan and related "Sunrise" transactions for 2018/19. The First‑tier Tribunal found the notice valid, concluded HMRC made a prima facie case that the outstanding documents were in Horsler’s possession or power, rejected his claimed reasonable excuses, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalties. The decision leaves open 56 days for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Marie Guerlain-Desai v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 515 (TC) 14 June 2024 This appeal concerned whether c.12 acres of woodland included in the single title for Durford House formed part of the "garden or grounds" of the dwelling for SDLT purposes at the acquisition date. The FTT applied the established multi‑factorial test (contiguity, use, extent, accessibility, legal constraints, functional relationship etc.) and found the woods were openly used by the public and lacked a functional relationship to the house, so they were not part of the dwelling's grounds. The tribunal allowed the appeal and concluded the purchaser was entitled to mixed‑use SDLT treatment rather than the higher residential rate.

Transports Tresserras v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 538 (TC) 14 June 2024 This is a First-tier Tribunal case management decision following seizure of about 4,000 kg of raw tobacco and a £528,031 penalty imposed by HMRC, with the appellant appealing. The tribunal allowed HMRC to file a late statement of case, ordered the appellant to provide certified English translations of specified Spanish documents (including those annexed to Señor Dominguez’s witness statement), reallocated the appeal to the Complex track, and permitted amendment of the grounds of appeal; Señor Dominguez may give factual evidence and a court-appointed interpreter will attend.

Armour Veterinary Group Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 539 (TC) 13 June 2024 The Tribunal heard Armour Veterinary Group Ltd's appeal against HMRC discovery assessments disallowing corporation tax relief for amortisation of goodwill arising from prior partnership transactions and acquisitions. The Tribunal held HMRC validly made discovery assessments and that none of the goodwill claimed (DCS Alexander, Dalblair, or Walker-related) qualified for amortisation relief under the Intangibles Regime given the factual and documentary evidence. The appeal was dismissed and the discovery assessments upheld.

Candido Pereira Rodrigues v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 517 (TC) 13 June 2024 This case concerns an application to admit two late appeals against Personal Liability Notices totalling £737,124.73. The Tribunal reinstated struck-out appeals to consider the late-notification application but, applying the three-stage test (length of delay, reasons for delay, and all other circumstances including merits and prejudice), refused permission to notify the appeals late and did not admit them. The Tribunal produced full findings and reasons and noted that failures by advisers are generally treated as failures by the litigant. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal may be sought under Rule 39 within the time limit.

Nigel Alexander Moore v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 518 (TC) 13 June 2024 This appeal concerned follower‑notice penalties under FA 2014 imposed on Nigel Moore for his use of a Montpelier Isle of Man tax scheme for 2006/07 and 2007/08. The tribunal found he had not taken the necessary corrective action by the statutory deadlines and that HMRC correctly measured the "denied advantage" as the additional tax arising from the Scheme income; HMRC's revised penalties (reduced for limited co‑operation and excluding NICs) were upheld and the appeal dismissed. Permission to apply for permission to appeal was preserved.

Roger Murphy v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 537 (TC) 13 June 2024 Mr Murphy claimed a carried-back share loss from 2006/07 in his 2005/06 self-assessment; the Tribunal held that as a matter of law the claim should have been treated as relating to the later year so Schedule 1B applied and he was not entitled to make the claim in 2005/06. Nevertheless the Tribunal found the erroneous carried-back claim was nevertheless made "in" the 2005/06 return, invalidating the Schedule 1A enquiry, but HMRC validly opened an s9A enquiry into 2006/07 and the s9A/28A closure notice for 2006/07 effectively disallowed the claimed relief. The appeal was dismissed.

UK Care No 1 Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 542 (TC) 13 June 2024 This case concerned whether parts of a c.£150.75m loan relationship debit taken by UK Care No 1 Ltd on early redemption of loan notes after it migrated to UK tax residence were "referable" to the pre-migration period and therefore disallowable under s 327 CTA 2009. The Tribunal held that about £93.903m of the loss was referable to pre-migration market movements and pre-migration expenses and so was disallowed, while c.£56.845m (the penalty element) was allowable. The Tribunal also held the redemption payment/debit constituted a loss arising in connection with a loan relationship for s 327 purposes.

Luis Carvajal & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 651 (TC) 11 June 2024 This appeal concerned whether Mrs Fleet’s personal guarantee of a loan to a trust constituted a chargeable lifetime transfer for inheritance tax, whether an IHT30 clearance certificate precluded later assessments, and whether assessments were time-barred. The Tribunal found HFL retained an effective charge over the Bonds and, because any guarantor’s subrogation rights would offset diminution of Mrs Fleet’s estate, the guarantee did not amount to a transfer of value. The Tribunal also held the s.239(2) clearance certificate was limited to the transfer specified on the IHT30 and did not cover any separate alleged lifetime transfer, and that the four‑year limitation did not apply. The appeals were allowed.

Ashley Charles Trees v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 516 (TC) 6 June 2024 This appeal concerned a director's liability notice (DLN) issued to Mr Ashley Trees seeking recovery of a VAT evasion penalty imposed on CCA Distribution Ltd. Mr Trees argued HMRC had abused process by failing to plead dishonesty in earlier connected proceedings and denied he was personally dishonest; the Tribunal dismissed the abuse application, treated the 2020 CCA decision as establishing knowledge for Stage One of the Ivey test, found Mr Trees dishonest at Stage Two, and dismissed his appeal against the DLN.

Cats North Sea Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 512 (TC) 6 June 2024 This case concerned whether Chapter 1 of Part 22 CTA 2010 applied to Amoco's hive-down of the CATS Pipeline to its wholly-owned subsidiary CNSL, and the capital allowances consequences of that hive-down and the subsequent share sale. The Tribunal held Part 22 applied, treating CNSL as successor to a notional transferred trade, but found CNSL's subsequent use of the assets for offshore ring-fence (ORF) activity triggered a disposal event under s61 CAA 2001 and a balancing charge of £169,197,035; the later share sale gave rise to no further charge. The prior PRT (CATS) Election did not alter the corporation tax/ring-fence analysis and was confined to PRT. The appeal was dismissed.

Gary Turner v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 495 (TC) 6 June 2024 This appeal concerned a £107,306.55 s.69D officers’ liability penalty imposed on Mr Gary Turner after HMRC disallowed Loy Commodities Ltd’s input VAT (periods 03/18–03/19) as connected to fraudulent VAT evasion. The FTT found, on the balance of probabilities and relying on unchallenged HMRC investigative evidence, that the purchases were traced to defaulting traders and therefore connected to fraud, and that Mr Turner knew or ought to have known of that connection and was the controlling mind of Loy. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

Hayat Estates Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 497 (TC) 6 June 2024 Hayat Estates appealed an HMRC C18 assessment charging customs duty on PPE imported under the EU/UK “Disaster Relief” scheme for COVID-19 supplies. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove most consignments reached Eligible Organisations and were distributed free within the UK, so relief was refused for the majority of imports; relief was accepted for certain entries and one aspect (gowns to East Sussex NHS Trust) was remitted to HMRC for adjustment. Goods returned to suppliers or destroyed after testing did not qualify for Disaster Relief, and supplies to private/commercial recipients or shipped outside the UK were not eligible.

Jagtar Singh Rai & Anor (t/a Bursha Foods) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 511 (TC) 6 June 2024 This appeal concerned VAT output assessments and penalties issued to Jagtar Singh Rai & Anor (trading as Bursha Foods) following HMRC's extraction and analysis of till data. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC's assessments as made to the best of their judgment and correct on full appraisal, but reduced penalties: three periods reclassified as careless with 60% mitigation and one penalty (11/15) mitigated by 60%; the appeal against the 11/14 penalty was dismissed. Some input-tax and earlier-owner penalties were withdrawn or conceded.

Joanne Lunn and Vanilla Monsoon Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 509 (TC) 6 June 2024 The Tribunal dismissed linked appeals by Joanne Lunn and her company Vanilla Monsoon Ltd against HMRC discovery assessments and penalties for several tax years/periods. It found on the balance of probabilities that expense increases and inter-company allocations were fabricated by the preparer Christopher Lunn/CLAC and that Ms Lunn’s claimed sole trade was not genuine, so the discovery assessments (including extended-time assessments where loss was deliberate) and the penalties were valid and upheld.

L Rowland & Company (Retail) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 513 (TC) 6 June 2024 This case concerns procedural directions in an appeal about whether over 1,000 locum pharmacists engaged by the appellant were employees for PAYE/NIC purposes. The Tribunal directed each side to provide additional named locum witnesses and a timetable for witness statements, required HMRC to provide further and better particulars of its third-stage multifactorial case after the witness evidence is served, and refused the appellant's interim costs application.

Philip Cox & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 510 (TC) 6 June 2024 Philip and Debra Cox appealed Schedule 24 penalties imposed for inaccurate 2019–20 self‑assessment claims to Business Asset Disposal Relief after they each gifted B shares below the 5% threshold; the FTT found the returns were inaccurate and that the Coxes were careless in making those claims. The tribunal upheld HMRC’s penalty calculations (15% after quality of disclosure reductions), refused to overturn HMRC’s decision not to suspend the penalties, dismissed the appeals, and granted permission for late notification.

Wholesale Distribution Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 514 (TC) 6 June 2024 Wholesale Distribution Limited (WDL) appealed HMRC’s denial of input VAT of £8,167,855.44 for 01/16–07/17 on the basis that the transactions were connected to MTIC fraud and that WDL (through its sole director Mr Crothers) knew or should have known. The Tribunal found there was a tax loss caused by fraudulent evasion and that the appealed transactions were connected to that evasion. The Tribunal accepted HMRC had discharged the burden on the balance of probabilities and held Mr Crothers did not actually know nor have "blind-eye" knowledge but was seriously negligent and therefore "should have known"; the appeal was dismissed and the assessments upheld.

Queenscourt Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 460 (TC) 3 June 2024 Queenscourt sold KFC meal deals which included an optional paid dip pot and sought VAT repayment treating dips as zero-rated separate supplies; HMRC repaid once then issued recovery assessments treating dips as ancillary to hot takeaway food and thus part of a single standard-rated supply. The Tribunal held the dip pots were ancillary to the hot food so the supply was standard-rated, upheld HMRC’s s 80(4A) recovery assessments as validly made within the statutory period, and rejected Queenscourt’s legitimate expectation and estoppel defences. The appeal was dismissed in full.

Gary Withers v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 433 (TC) 31 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether parts of a 39‑acre purchase (Lake Farm) formed the dwelling's "garden or grounds" for SDLT. The Tribunal found on the facts that c.20 acres grazed under a grazing agreement and c.8.5 acres subject to a Woodland Trust arrangement had separate, self‑standing uses and therefore were non‑residential land. HMRC's closure notice was quashed and the appeal allowed.

YT Medical Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 496 (TC) 31 May 2024 This case concerns YT Medical Ltd and an individual appellant seeking permission to bring late appeals against two corporation tax discovery assessments and against penalty assessments issued by HMRC. The First-tier Tribunal found that a 6 December 2022 letter amounted to a valid, in‑time appeal against the penalties, that there was no satisfactory evidence HMRC served the 29 November 2021 discovery assessment (so a 25 March 2022 letter was treated as a valid appeal), and that an out‑of‑time appeal against the 4 April 2022 assessments should be allowed. The tribunal granted the applications to bring the appeals out of time.

Benoît D'Angelin v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 462 (TC) 30 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether sums drawn by Mr Benoît D'Angelin from a director's loan account (DLA) after remitting £1.5m into a company qualified for Business Investment Relief (BIR). The First-tier Tribunal held the DLA payments were an "extraction of value" under s.809VH(2) ITA 2007, not caught by the s.809VH(3) exception because they were not on arm's-length terms, and dismissed the appeal. As a result the full £1.5m was treated as remitted and taxable, increasing tax by about £675,307.

Charles Kendall Freight Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 492 (TC) 30 May 2024 This interlocutory decision concerned an appeal against two C18 assessments which HMRC withdrew during proceedings. The Tribunal held that once the underlying decisions were withdrawn and thus lost all operative effect it ceased to have jurisdiction and struck the appeal out under Rule 8(2)(a), and it refused the appellant's costs application for want of justification and because no costs schedule had been provided.

Kevin Leonard Murphy v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 459 (TC) 30 May 2024 This appeal concerned a £975 civil evasion penalty imposed on Mr Murphy for allegedly attempting to evade customs and excise duties after 5,208 cigarettes brought from Cambodia were lost/mishandled and later returned without the cigarettes. The Tribunal found Mr Murphy genuinely intended to declare and pay duty, there was no reliable evidence he completed or signed the BOR1422 form relied on by HMRC, and applying the Ivey test his conduct was not dishonest. The appeal was allowed and the penalty cancelled.

Shaun Harte v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 493 (TC) 30 May 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments, a closure notice, inaccuracy penalties and a late VAT‑registration penalty arising from undeclared bank receipts, corporate‑card charges, and incorrect capital‑allowance/home‑office claims. The Tribunal found two bank receipts (£36,000 and £27,500) and £12,930.89 of personal expenditure met by the company were taxable income, treated a £6,000 receipt as a loan repayment, allowed limited motoring and home‑office deductions, disallowed capital allowances, and adjusted penalties and assessment periods according to findings of deliberate versus careless conduct. The discovery assessments were reduced by removing the credit‑card insufficiency where HMRC had not established culpable conduct, and VAT registration liability (from 1 March 2009) and its penalty were upheld and reduced.

The Tyre Company (NI) Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 461 (TC) 30 May 2024 The First-tier Tribunal refused three applications by The Tyre Company (NI) Ltd and another for permission to bring late appeals against VAT assessments, a penalty assessment and a personal liability notice. The appeals were between about 4½ and 17 months late; the tribunal found the delay serious, caused by the appellants’ former representative and not excused, and that the appellants’ evidence and merits were limited. Balancing all circumstances, including the importance of statutory time limits, permission to file late appeals was refused.

Colaingrove Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 490 (TC) 29 May 2024 Colaingrove Ltd sought additional interest under section 84(8) VATA on VAT repayments HMRC made after long-running litigation and rejected s80 claims; the First-tier Tribunal found it had discretionary power (as preserved by TTFO) to award additional interest in appropriate cases, including many arising from s80 claims. The Tribunal allowed additional interest for specified lines (appeals) and refused others barred by post‑1 April 2009 procedural changes, ordering recalculation of amounts at Bank of England base rate plus 1.5% for the awarded periods.

Imran Majid v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 491 (TC) 25 May 2024 This appeal concerned Schedule 41 penalties for failure to notify chargeability to tax for multiple years; the appellant accepted the tax assessments but contested the penalties. The Tribunal found HMRC had failed to prove the penalties were correctly calculated and that the basis for any abatement had been properly communicated or notified. As a result, HMRC did not discharge their burden of proof and the penalties were not upheld.

Generator Power Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 458 (TC) 24 May 2024 Generator Power Ltd appealed an HMRC information notice under Schedule 36 FA 2008 seeking a Property Schedule and a Legal Fees Schedule relating to property transfers from the company's sole director/shareholder. The Tribunal found the requested schedules were reasonably required to check GPL's tax position and that HMRC had "reason to suspect" relevant under-assessments for the periods covered, so GPL's appeal was dismissed and it was ordered to provide the outstanding information within 56 days.

Afzal Alimahomed v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 432 (TC) 23 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether transfers and payments made from offshore mixed‑fund accounts and by use of an offshore credit card were "remitted to the United Kingdom" for a non‑UK domiciled taxpayer on the remittance basis, and whether HMRC's discovery assessment for 2015–16 validly relied on the s.29 TMA “deliberateness” gateway. The Tribunal set aside the 2015–16 discovery assessment for failure by HMRC to establish deliberateness, found that transfers initiated from the appellant’s offshore accounts to UK accounts and repayment of UK‑incurred debts via offshore funds (including by offshore credit‑card use) could constitute remittances for 2016–17, and directed the parties to agree quantum (or return to the Tribunal).

Chee Whye Yip v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 434 (TC) 23 May 2024 This appeal concerned a discovery assessment and a deliberate inaccuracy penalty relating to a £250,000 payment in 2012–13 which the appellant did not disclose. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the payment was taxable income (so the return was insufficient) but that HMRC had not proved the insufficiency was brought about deliberately by the appellant or by anyone acting on his behalf. The discovery assessment relying on the 20‑year time limit and the deliberate inaccuracy penalty were therefore discharged and the appeal allowed.

Giles Bunting v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 431 (TC) 23 May 2024 The First-tier Tribunal allowed Mr Bunting’s appeals, quashing HMRC’s joint-and-several liability decision under regulation 10 HMDPR and cancelling the Schedule 41 excise wrongdoing penalty. The Tribunal found that the farm owner who rented Unit 1 to an unauthorised occupier did not physically possess the 2,537,600 duty‑unpaid cigarettes and was not “involved in the holding” nor “concerned in … keeping” them because he did not know and should not have known they were excise goods.

Jonathon Woods v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 595 (TC) 23 May 2024 This case concerned whether HMRC discovery assessments for HICBC for 2014/15–2019/20 are "protected assessments" under section 97 of the Finance Act 2022. The Tribunal decided the assessments are protected and that the Wilkes-type point (that HICBC is not "income" for s29(1) TMA) was not raised by the appellant or the Tribunal by 30 June 2021 nor was there a qualifying temporary pause before 27 October 2021. As a result, the appeal will proceed to a full substantive hearing; the preliminary decision does not determine the substantive merits.

Mayfair Avenue Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 430 (TC) 23 May 2024 Mayfair Avenue Limited appealed an HMRC closure notice asserting an additional £70,500 SDLT after MAL (a company controlled by Mr Ali) bought 94 Mayfair Avenue for £650,000. The Tribunal found the purchase met Schedule 4A conditions for the 15% higher rate and that Mr Ali was a connected person who was intended to occupy the dwelling at the effective date, so paragraph 5 relief did not apply. The appeal was dismissed and the closure notice upheld.

Patrick Rodney Boden & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 457 (TC) 23 May 2024 The Budens (Patrick Rodney Boden & Anor) appealed HMRC discovery assessments for 2011–12 to 2014–15 concerning partnership income and expense claims. The Tribunal found the partnership should have used the accruals basis (so unpaid "proforma invoice" amounts were taxable), HMRC had validly made discovery assessments within time, the expenses adjustments made by the investigator were reasonable, and bad debt relief was not available. The appeals were dismissed.

Spas Ivanov v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 433 (TC) 23 May 2024 This appeal concerned the seizure at Stansted of 15,600 cigarettes and subsequent Excise Duty and Excise Wrongdoing Penalty assessments issued to the Appellant. The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to reopen the correctness of the seizure because of CEMA deeming provisions, found the duty assessment valid and the penalty properly classified as "deliberate but not concealed" with the quantum appropriate, and dismissed the appeal. The duty of £4,804 and penalty of £1,681 were upheld.

Daniel Witton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 489 (TC) 22 May 2024 This is a Tribunal review of case management applications in an appeal by Daniel Witton against HMRC assessments for income tax and NICs relating to payments from Direct Sharedeal Limited. The Tribunal admitted HMRC's late witness statement and document amendments, refused the Appellant's application to bar HMRC from relying on a wilful failure to deduct, and awarded the Appellant partial costs of £12,500 for the barring and admission objections. The review also reworded a paragraph of the earlier decision and corrected typographical errors.

Hugh Edward Mark Osmond & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 413 (TC) 20 May 2024 This case concerns a third party's application for copies of the parties' written skeleton arguments and any supplemental written submissions from an appeal heard 11–14 March 2024. The Tribunal applied open justice principles and conducted a fact‑specific balancing exercise. It found the applicant had a legitimate interest and ordered disclosure of the parties' skeleton arguments (no supplemental submissions existed). The Tribunal preserved the parties' right to apply for permission to appeal.

Hugh Edward Mark Osmond v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 414 (TC) 20 May 2024 The Tribunal considered an application by Mr Osmond for copies of the parties' skeleton arguments from an appeal heard 11–14 March 2024. Applying open justice and a fact-specific balancing exercise, the Tribunal found the applicant had a legitimate interest and ordered disclosure as proportionate and not harmful to the judicial process. The Tribunal directed the skeletons be provided within 21 days of release of the decision.

Anandpreet Singh Powar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 415 (TC) 17 May 2024 This appeal concerned a personal liability notice issued to Mr Anandpreet Singh Powar, sole director of Drinks 4 Less (UK) Ltd, after HMRC denied the company's input VAT claims and imposed a Schedule 24 penalty. The Tribunal found the company's purchases were connected to a fraudulent VAT loss and that Mr Powar should have known, and more likely than not did know, of that connection; accordingly the VAT returns were deliberately inaccurate, the inaccuracies were attributable to him, and the PLN of £74,823.63 was confirmed. The appeal was dismissed.

L v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 401 (TC) 17 May 2024 This case concerns an application by the appellant for a private substantive hearing and an anonymised judgment under Rule 32, relying principally on her medical history and a confidential settlement agreement. The Tribunal found objective evidence that a public hearing posed a real and immediate risk to the appellant's health (including risk of relapse and possible life risk) and granted anonymity and a private hearing, with confidentiality of the settlement agreement also supporting the order. The Tribunal declined to grant anonymity on the basis of commercial prejudice, finding the evidence insufficient.

Blocksure Limited (in liquidation) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 397 (TC) 16 May 2024 Blocksure Ltd and its director sought permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC Notices of Requirement for security totalling £585,109.90 for PAYE and NICs. The First-tier Tribunal applied the Denton/Martland three-stage test, found the delay serious and unjustified, and concluded Officer Laurie's decision to issue the NoRs was one a reasonable decision-maker could have made on the facts known to him. Permission to bring a late appeal was refused and the Tribunal said the substantive appeal would have failed.

Kenneth Williams v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 411 (TC) 16 May 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and penalties arising from Mr Williams' 2004–2006 property dealings. The Tribunal found he had not validly notified chargeability for the years in question, upheld the s29 discovery assessments (relying on the extended 20-year period because the loss arose from negligent failure to notify), allowed an additional £20,500 of renovation expenses to be allocated across the nine properties, treated two Dollond Street disposals as capital (CGT) rather than trading receipts, and reduced penalties to 40% of the revised tax due.

MWL International Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 402 (TC) 16 May 2024 This case concerns appeals by Maywal Ltd and MWL International Ltd against HMRC retrospective Class 1A NICs charges for company cars which the appellants said were pool cars under ITEPA s 167 based on a 1993 agreement with an Inland Revenue inspector. The Tribunal held that, except for one Porsche, the cars failed Condition (d) because private use was not "merely incidental," so they were not pool cars, and dismissed estoppel and legitimate-expectation arguments against HMRC. The Tribunal also found it lacked jurisdiction under ToFA to determine the appellants' legitimate expectation claim. The appeals were dismissed and HMRC’s ToFA decisions upheld, though separate assessments against two junior employees were cancelled.

Jit Panesar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 412 (TC) 15 May 2024 This case concerns a very late appeal (over eight years) by Mr Jit Panesar against late-filing penalties for the 2012/2013 self-assessment return. The Tribunal applied the Martland three-stage test and found the delay serious, the appellant's explanations weak, and correspondence had been sent to his UK address; permission to appeal out of time was refused. On the merits the Tribunal found no objectively reasonable excuse or special circumstances for late filing and would have dismissed the appeal in any event. The application for permission to appeal out of time and the substantive appeal were therefore both dismissed.

Adriart Aliaj v The Director Border Revenue [2024] UKFTT 377 (TC) 9 May 2024 This appeal concerned Border Force's refusal to restore Mr Aliaj's Mercedes, which had been seized at outbound controls because it contained a sophisticated, lead-lined electrically operated concealed compartment. The Tribunal found the appellant's account of ignorance not credible, and concluded that refusal to restore under Border Force policy was reasonable and proportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

Charles Caton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 374 (TC) 9 May 2024 This case concerns Mr Charles Caton's late application (about 3 years 8 months) for permission to appeal penalty assessments issued to him by HMRC on 12 April 2019 arising from his company's disposals. The tribunal applied the Martland three-stage test, found the delay serious and unjustified, rejected the appellant's key factual claim of a March 2019 telephone reassurance (preferring contemporaneous records), found no obvious strengths in the underlying appeal, and dismissed the application for permission.

David Thompson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 375 (TC) 9 May 2024 This appeal challenged HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge for 2016/17–2019/20 and associated failure-to-notify penalties. The First-tier Tribunal found the discovery was made on 17 May 2021, the assessment process validly continued and issued by a different officer, and that the appellant had received HMRC correspondence (and was aware by 13 January 2020) so had no reasonable excuse for non-notification. The appeals against the assessments and penalties were dismissed.

Digital Buying Partners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 399 (TC) 9 May 2024 Digital Buying Partners Ltd appealed HMRC assessments clawing back £11,208.05 of Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments for two employees who were not shown on RTI by the relevant CJRS day (19 March 2020). The First-tier Tribunal found the employees did not meet the statutory RTI inclusion requirement and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessment. The Tribunal also held it was not permissible to apply a "reasonable excuse" to cure failure to be shown on RTI by the relevant CJRS day because the Directions only permit reasonable-excuse considerations for late claims or amendments.

Elizabeth Rooke v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 403 (TC) 9 May 2024 Mrs Rooke appealed HMRC's refusal of overpayment relief for capital gains tax after sale of a London flat. The Tribunal found she acquired a 35.29% beneficial interest in October 1999 for £90,000 and a further 14.71% in 2003 for £44,865.50 (giving 50% ownership), allowed acquisition costs including a lease extension, confined private residence and lettings relief to 21 months, and assessed total CGT due on her share at £59,046.30; after credits and a prior incorrect repayment, a balance of £6,308.44 remained due and the overpayment claim was refused. The appeal was dismissed.

Larry Trachtenberg v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 376 (TC) 9 May 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments for unauthorised payments from a SIPP in 2006 and 2009 and a refusal to discharge a 15% unauthorised payments surcharge. The First-tier Tribunal held the payments were unauthorised, the resulting fixed-rate charges under ss208–209 FA 2004 are income tax charges recoverable by assessment under s29 TMA 1970, and that the appellant acted deliberately in submitting and sustaining inaccurate returns so extended time limits applied. The assessments and refusal to discharge the surcharge were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Gareth Bezant v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 400 (TC) 8 May 2024 This appeal concerned two late payment penalties under Schedule 56 FA 2009 imposed on Mr Gareth Bezant for 2021–22. The Tribunal found HMRC had properly assessed and issued the electronic penalty notices and that its Reg 6 certificate created a rebuttable presumption of delivery, but also found a materially different Paper Notice issued to the appellant was a relevant factor which HMRC failed to consider and which warranted a special reduction. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeal and reduced the penalties to £0.

Hugh Edward Mark Osmond & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 378 (TC) 8 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether payments to two shareholders from Xercise2 Ltd in March 2015 were income (taxable under the Targeted Anti‑Avoidance Rule / TIS regime) or capital (eligible for EIS disposal relief), and whether HMRC's counteraction notices and subsequent assessments were valid and in time. The tribunal found for HMRC on all issues: the shareholders' main purpose in the buybacks included obtaining an income tax advantage (s684/687), the consideration fell within "relevant consideration" (s685) and was not excluded by s685(6), the counteraction notices were valid (or cured by s114 TMA), and the six‑year TIS time limit applied so assessments were not time‑barred.

Anthony Dennison v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 364 (TC) 2 May 2024 This appeal challenged HMRC's closure notice disallowing a post-cessation relief claim for 2009/10; the Tribunal found HMRC's notice of enquiry was not received in time and so the enquiry and closure notice were invalid, and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal also (obiter) concluded the settlement payments would not have qualified as s97(2)(b) damages because they settled broader fiduciary and related claims rather than defective professional work.

David Kingsmill Plumpton v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 367 (TC) 2 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether a director's loan account (DLA) had been written off in 2013–14, thereby triggering income tax, and a related penalty, following HMRC's closure notice. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the DLA was not written off in 2013–14, that the board minutes relied on did not reflect a 2014 meeting and were unreliable, and that the closure notice amendment should be reduced to £0 with the penalty removed. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeal.

Freedom Recycling Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 369 (TC) 2 May 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC's excise duty Assessment of £46,749 and a Schedule 41 wrongdoing Penalty of £14,024.70 against Freedom Recycling Ltd, based on findings that two consignments of alcohol were collected from the company's premises in August 2012. The First-tier Tribunal upheld that the Assessment and Penalty were issued in time, that the Appellant was liable because it held or was otherwise involved with the goods, and that HMRC's best-judgment assessment and reduced non‑deliberate penalty were reasonable. The Appellant's appeals were dismissed.

Charles Ferguson-Davie & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 321 (TC) 1 May 2024 This appeal concerned whether carried interest distributions paid to partners of the CIP after 8 July 2015 were protected by the s.43(2) Finance (No.2) Act 2015 "grandfathering" where the underlying profits were generated by disposals before that date. The Tribunal found the carried interest "arose in connection with" the post-8 July 2015 disposal of Audley Court (which was necessary to meet the 9% IRR that triggered the carry), so the s.43(2) grandfathering did not apply and HMRC's closure-notice amendments were upheld. The Tribunal also held that qualifying corporate bonds (QCBs) are "assets" for TCGA purposes and that KA(2) can cover disposals of QCBs, but this did not change the outcome.

Kaljinder Singh Kalay v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 366 (TC) 1 May 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC's refusal to admit a late EIS income tax claim and a related closure notice for 2019–20 after the appellant sought EIS CGT exemption for shares issued in 2013 and disposed of in 2019. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain an appeal against HMRC's refusal to admit a late income tax claim and struck out the separate appeal against the closure notice as having no reasonable prospect of success because the EIS CGT exemption requires a valid EIS income tax claim made and given effect in time. Both limbs of the appellant's appeal were struck out.

V-Com (Worldwide) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 368 (TC) 1 May 2024 V‑Com appealed HMRC's refusal to allow input VAT on iPhone purchases where Apple till receipts did not name the appellant; HMRC applied to strike out the appeal as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal dismissed the strike‑out application, holding HMRC had sufficiently disclosed its case and that the appeal raised substantial factual and discretionary issues (including the exercise of HMRC's Reg 29 discretion) requiring a full hearing rather than being a short point of law.

Barclays Bank PLC v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 246 (TC) 26 April 2024 Barclays Bank PLC appealed HMRC's closure notice denying a tax deduction for an £800m accreted debit arising from allocation of proceeds between Reserve Capital Instruments (RCIs) and warrants. The Tribunal found on the facts that Barclays received £3bn for the RCIs (not split with the warrants), so no accruing discount arose and no deductible loss existed, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also held that even if GAAP could support the allocation, the accreted debit did not "fairly represent" Barclays' losses for s84(1)(a) purposes.

Martin Lynch & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 350 (TC) 26 April 2024 Mr and Mrs Lynch bought a house with 22 acres including 18 acres of "Grazing Land" and paid SDLT on the basis the property was wholly residential. HMRC refused an overpayment claim alleging the land was non-residential; the Tribunal found the grazing use at completion was informal, non‑exclusive and not commercial from the appellants’ perspective, and on a multi‑factorial assessment the Grazing Land formed part of the grounds of the Main House. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's closure notice upheld.

Flame Tree Publishing Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 349 (TC) 25 April 2024 Flame Tree Publishing Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal of R&D tax relief claimed in an amended CT return for year to 30 June 2018. The Tribunal found the company had one composite Project to make archival books searchable but failed to show an advance in overall knowledge or capability or resolution of scientific/technological uncertainty beyond what a competent professional could readily deduce, and also failed to support the claimed expenditure with credible evidence. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s closure notice and assessment increasing tax by £50,662 were upheld.

Gillian Graham t/a Skin Science v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 352 (TC) 25 April 2024 This appeal concerned whether treatments provided by a nurse-run clinic were VAT-exempt medical care or standard-rated cosmetic services, and whether HMRC's 18 March 2021 VAT assessment was issued in time. The Tribunal found the Appellant did not prove the treatments had a principal therapeutic purpose or fell within the nurse's RGN scope, so the supplies are standard-rated and the compulsory registration decision stands. However, the Tribunal held the 2021 assessment was out of time under s 73(6)(b) because the nil return did not supply new evidence to justify issuing the assessment, so that assessment was annulled. Procedural‑validity/jurisdictional issues were not decided as unnecessary.

LKV Ivica Ltd v Director of Border Revenue [2024] UKFTT 341 (TC) 25 April 2024 This appeal concerned LKV Ivica Ltd’s challenge to Border Force’s refusal to restore a trailer seized at Dover after 10 kg of cocaine was found concealed in it. The First-tier Tribunal found the seizure had been deemed condemned because it was not challenged in the allocated court, and upheld the non-restoration decision as reasonable on the facts and applying the Respondent’s restoration policy. The appeal was dismissed.

Mahadevan Krishnamohan & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 346 (TC) 25 April 2024 The appeals concerned whether arrangements styled as "Option Agreements" were, on grant, disposals (options) chargeable to CGT or were in substance loans/security. The First-tier Tribunal held that no option was granted on entry of the First Sheen Agreement because the grantor could prevent the grantee ever acquiring a choice to buy (notably by repayment/termination), and therefore the appeals were allowed. The Tribunal did not need to decide whether the transactions were loans or security once it concluded no option existed at the critical time.

Coopervision Lens Care Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 351 (TC) 23 April 2024 HMRC sought a specific disclosure order in an ongoing PAYE appeal relating to a 2014 share disposal, seeking four categories of communications and advice; the Tribunal refused the application. The Tribunal held HMRC had not shown the documents were reasonably required for a fair determination, the proposed searches were ambiguously drafted and disproportionate, and requests implicating legal advice raised privilege concerns. The application for disclosure was therefore refused and parties were told of appeal rights.

Horizon Contracts Limited (in liquidation) & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 348 (TC) 19 April 2024 This case concerns HMRC's denial of input VAT and related penalties and officer liability notices, alleging a coordinated fraud using c.1,520 mini-umbrella companies. The Tribunal admitted HMRC's amended statement of case but refused HMRC's request to limit disclosure to a sample of documentary evidence at this stage and also refused HMRC's request for heightened reciprocal (CPR-style) disclosure from the Appellants. Further case management directions were ordered.

Simon Holding & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 337 (TC) 19 April 2024 The tribunal considered whether about 24 acres of fields adjoining a farmhouse formed part of the farmhouse's "grounds" for SDLT on the 29 August 2018 purchase of Hall Farm. Applying an evaluative, fact-specific approach, the tribunal found the fields provided amenity and performed functions for the dwelling (including winter grazing, riding and control over use) and were therefore part of the residential grounds. The appeal was dismissed and the higher residential SDLT rate applied.

Block-Aid Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 339 (TC) 18 April 2024 Block‑Aid Ltd appealed VAT assessments issued by HMRC disallowing input tax where invoices appeared paid in cash. The Tribunal held that Block‑Aid proved input tax only for vehicle purchases (supported by V5C transfers and payment evidence) but failed to discharge the burden of proof for haulage, tyres, groundworks and security; accordingly the assessments were upheld except for a reduction of £13,775 for the vehicles.

Fount Construction Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 340 (TC) 18 April 2024 Fount Construction Limited appealed HMRC's refusal to allow recovery of input VAT on three Landcore Limited invoices which HMRC said failed to meet regulation 14(1)(g) and (h) invoice-description requirements. The Tribunal held the invoices did meet reg 14 because they described the supplies as "Building Works" and gave the full site address, and it rejected the proposition that invoices must contain enough detail for HMRC to determine VAT treatment without further enquiry. The appeal was allowed.

The Good Pack Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 338 (TC) 17 April 2024 The Good Pack Limited appealed a VAT default surcharge of £1,115.41 for period 01/23. The Tribunal found TGPL did not prove a reasonable excuse for late filing/payment—assertions about trading difficulties, book‑keeper errors, a bounced direct debit and attempts to contact HMRC were not sufficiently evidenced. The 2% surcharge was held correctly calculated under the statutory scheme and not disproportionate, so the appeal was dismissed.

Countrywide Partners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 323 (TC) 11 April 2024 The First-tier Tribunal dismissed Countrywide Partners Limited's appeal and upheld HMRC's allocation of SRN 20980718 under the DOTAS regime. The Tribunal found HMRC's notice was properly issued and received at the company's registered office, that HMRC complied with the statutory allocation procedure, and that the arrangements met multiple prescribed hallmarks producing a tax advantage, with Countrywide acting as a promoter.

David Foulkes v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 322 (TC) 10 April 2024 This case concerned whether a £13,040 loan received by Mr Foulkes after transferring an £18,309 pension into an Alderley scheme was an "unauthorised member payment" under FA 2004, and whether the 15% unauthorised payments surcharge should be discharged. The Tribunal found a causal link between the loan and the scheme's investment in Haimachek, treated the loan as an unauthorised member payment, reduced HMRC's original charges to reflect the loan amount (total charge £7,172) and refused to discharge the surcharge.

Jama Academy Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 302 (TC) 10 April 2024 Jama Academy Limited appealed HMRC assessments alleging overpayment of Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) claims for two employees. The Tribunal held the assessments were valid and within time, found the employees were variable-rate (not fixed monthly salary) and calculated "reference salary" for each claim period by taking the greater of a properly‑calculated pro‑rata average and the look‑back amount; it accepted HMRC's revised calculations and reduced the assessments to £8,863.48. No penalties were imposed.

Metropolitan International Schools Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 320 (TC) 10 April 2024 This appeal concerned whether HMRC should have been ordered to pay costs for failing to disclose the objective reasons for issuing Schedule 36 information notices and for the content of a case officer’s witness statement; the Tribunal concluded HMRC owed no duty to disclose those objective reasons to the taxpayer (that duty is to the Tribunal) and that HMRC’s conduct did not justify a costs award. The earlier costs award in favour of Metropolitan International Schools was set aside and no further order as to costs was made; outstanding documents were ordered to be provided to HMRC by 1 May 2024.

Stanley Augustine Herrmann v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 303 (TC) 10 April 2024 This appeal concerned discovery assessments and penalties issued by HMRC to Mr Stanley Herrmann for multiple tax years relating to rental and other income, and whether the assessments were valid, within time limits, and correctly quantified and penalised. The Tribunal found discovery was made in June 2019, that Mr Herrmann was negligent in failing to establish or arrange tax compliance (so extended time limits applied), that the quantum of the assessments was fair and reasonable, and that there was no reasonable excuse or special circumstances; the assessments and penalties were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Antelope Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 307 (TC) 8 April 2024 Antelope Transport Ltd appealed assessments for £680,221 excise duty and a £408,132.60 wrongdoing penalty after 2,311,400 cigarettes were found concealed in timber on one of its lorries; HMRC had seized and forfeited the goods and treated the company as the person “making delivery”/“holding” the goods under Regulation 13(2) HMDP and Schedule 41 FA 2008. The FTT dismissed the appeal, finding the company liable because its employee had physical possession while acting under the company’s control and direction, and upheld the finding that the conduct was deliberate and concealed and the penalty correctly assessed and discounted. Parties may apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal within 56 days.

Assembly Global Networks Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 304 (TC) 3 April 2024 This case concerns whether HMRC's Enquiry Letter to Assembly Global Networks Ltd (AGN) was validly delivered before the statutory deadline. The Tribunal found HMRC printed, franked and posted the letter (despatched 18 July 2022), postal disruption was temporary and ordinary service had resumed by 25 July, and AGN failed to prove non-receipt at its registered office. The s.7 Interpretation Act deeming provision therefore operated and the letter was deemed delivered by 28 July 2022; the Preliminary Issue was decided for HMRC.

Hawthorn Properties Unlimited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 305 (TC) 3 April 2024 Hawthorn Properties appealed ATED late-filing penalties imposed under Sch.55 FA 2009/2013 after the company failed to file annual returns for several years because it was genuinely unaware of the ATED filing requirement. The First-tier Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction over the 2021/22 appeal, concluded HMRC's approach to refusing special reduction was irrational so the Tribunal could reconsider special circumstances, and on that basis discharged the 2015/16 penalties, dismissed the 2016/17 challenge, and reduced the 2018/19 and 2020/21 penalties to nil except for the initial £100 penalties for those years.

Jonathan Cooke v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 272 (TC) 3 April 2024 This appeal concerned whether Mr Cooke qualified for entrepreneurs' relief on sale of ISG Holdings shares despite his registered holding being 4.99998% (one share short of 5%). The First-tier Tribunal found that the parties had a common continuing intention that he acquire 5%, that the executed documents mistakenly failed to record that, and that the Tribunal could and should treat the position as if the High Court would rectify the documents. The Tribunal therefore allowed the appeal and treated the appellant as meeting the 5% condition.

Rasiah Raveendran v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 273 (TC) 3 April 2024 This Tribunal hearing concerned whether a discovery assessment by HMRC was valid and who was the beneficial owner of 114 Tooting Hill Street. The Tribunal found the discovery assessment was validly made but that the purchase monies and subsequent payments were provided by Mr Indraraj, so the legal title held in Mr Raveendran's name was held on trust for Mr Indraraj. The appeal was allowed on the basis that Mr Indraraj was the sole beneficial owner.

Michael Saunders v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 300 (TC) 2 April 2024 This appeal concerned whether a £1,236,956 cash payment under stock appreciation rights (SARs) was taxable UK employment income for 2016/17. The Tribunal held the Payment was earnings arising from Mr Saunders’ employment (granted and linked to service between 4 April 2013 and 31 July 2016) and, because those earnings were earned while he was UK resident, the whole Payment was taxable in 2016/17. The appeal was dismissed.

Mihalakis Michael & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 301 (TC) 2 April 2024 This appeal concerned whether 3.4 acres of woodland adjoining Hookwood House formed part of the "garden or grounds" of the dwelling for SDLT under s116(1) FA 2003. The FTT found the woodland was contiguous, in common ownership, provided privacy/security and was not used for any purpose separate from the dwelling, and dismissed the purchasers' appeal. HMRC's closure notice treating the whole acquisition as residential was upheld.

Andrew Nunn v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 298 (TC) 27 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether principal private residence (PPR) relief applied to part of Mr Nunn's garden sold to a developer and, relatedly, whether a 2 June 2016 letter effected an earlier disposal, constructive trust, or appropriation to trading stock. The Tribunal held that the relevant disposal date is determined by the TCGA (including s.28), that the 2 June letter was neither a contract nor a constructive trust, and although there was a deemed appropriation to trading stock on 2 June 2016 the land remained garden/grounds on that date. As a result PPR relief applied to the deemed disposal and the suspended penalty was set aside.

Benjamin Erridge v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 276 (TC) 27 March 2024 This First-tier Tribunal decision concerned Benjamin Erridge’s HICBC assessments and penalties for 2012–13 to 2018–19. The Tribunal found Mr Erridge, a dyslexic taxpayer, had a reasonable excuse for failing to notify HICBC liability and cancelled the penalties; because he was thereby treated as not having failed to notify, extended assessment periods could not be relied on and HMRC’s assessments for 2013–14 to 2017–18 were cancelled. Only the 2018–19 assessment of £2,501 was upheld. The Tribunal declined jurisdiction to rule on HMRC’s debt-collection conduct or to grant ESC A19 relief.

Elphysic Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 291 (TC) 27 March 2024 This case concerns lead appellants who operated as mini-umbrella companies (MUCs) and challenged HMRC's deregistration, withdrawal of VAT Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) authorisations, and denial of Employment Allowance (EA) after an investigation (Operation Bakewell). The Tribunal found the MUC model showed lack of director independence and dominant control by organisers, that the VAT registrations were used for fraudulent purposes, and that HMRC was entitled to withdraw FRS authorisations and deny EA; the appeals were allowed in part with consequential VAT assessments upheld. Parties may apply for permission to appeal.

Julian Edwards v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 279 (TC) 27 March 2024 This case concerns an application to reinstate an appeal that had been automatically struck out for failure to comply with an Unless Order. The Tribunal applied the usual three-stage test, found the Appellant repeatedly failed to engage and gave uncorroborated, insufficient reasons (including business pressures, separation, single parenting and poor mental health), and concluded the appeal had no pleaded grounds and was effectively hopeless. The application for reinstatement was refused.

Lynx Forecourt Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 278 (TC) 27 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether two non-cash bonuses (transfers of PIL loan notes in 2002 and 2003) fell within the 1998 ICTA provisions that defer tax/NICs on conditional awards of securities. The tribunal found the short-term death-forfeiture condition was inserted solely for tax advantage and was commercially irrelevant, and applied a purposive construction of the 1998 legislation to exclude such conditions. The tribunal dismissed the appeal: income tax and NICs were chargeable on acquisition of the loan notes, with quantum to be agreed or determined.

Mauheed Johngir & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 274 (TC) 27 March 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments and 50/50 personal liability notices issued to two directors after their insolvent company’s VAT returns were found inaccurate from till, card and other data and missing records. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC’s best-judgment assessments were reasonable, found the directors had deliberately caused the inaccuracies (suppression of cash sales, incorrect zero‑rating and overstated input tax), upheld the personal liability notices (reduced post-ADR), and dismissed the appeal. Each appellant was held liable for £363,687.49; parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Oculus Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 271 (TC) 27 March 2024 Oculus Limited, a Malta company using a UK agent, appealed the allocation of a DOTAS Scheme Reference Number (SRN) to its agent; HMRC had issued the SRN to the agent but not to Oculus. The First-tier Tribunal struck out Oculus's appeal for want of jurisdiction because Oculus had not been notified of the SRN and so had no statutory right of appeal, and the Tribunal also found that EU law did not override the domestic statutory scheme. The Tribunal further held there was no evidence that the DOTAS provisions restricted or discriminated against Oculus's free movement of capital.

Qasim Latif v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 277 (TC) 27 March 2024 This appeal concerned discovery assessments totalling £17,887 and penalties of £3,327.30 under the High Income Child Benefit Charge for 2012–13 to 2019–20. The Tribunal found that a recorded-delivery letter dated 14 May 2021 constituted an in-time notice of appeal against both the penalty and the discovery assessments, that the discovery assessments were valid "relevant protected assessments" within statutory time limits, and that Mr Latif had not shown a continuing reasonable excuse for delay; both appeals were dismissed.

Timothy Bunting v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 275 (TC) 27 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether Mr Bunting could claim a capital loss under s.253 TCGA 1992 in respect of a £2.2m loan that had been capitalised into 2,200,000 £1 shares which were effectively worthless when issued. The Tribunal held that "outstanding" and "irrecoverable" in s.253(3) mean unpaid and impossible (or not expected) to be recovered, and that subsistence or enforceability of the loan at the claim date is not required. Because the loan was satisfied by nil-value shares, the unpaid balance remained outstanding and irrecoverable for s.253 purposes, so the capital loss claim succeeds. The appeal was allowed.

Aemtrie Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 247 (TC) 22 March 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments of furlough (CJRS) claims made by three related companies for payments said to be incorrectly claimed for two director‑employees (Peter Walsh and Claire Hallett‑Walsh). The Tribunal held PW and CHW were variable‑rate employees because purported fixed salaries were subject to month‑by‑month waivers, and allowed HMRC to run a contrary‑to‑purpose argument against Aemyrie Holdings Ltd and True Wood Grills Ltd (but not Aemtrie Ltd). The Tribunal increased the assessments for AH and TWG from 1 November 2020 and dismissed the appeal.

Yisroel Dreyfus v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 244 (TC) 21 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether a former garage/annex at 60a Cranbourne Gardens formed a second dwelling, or was in the process of being constructed or adapted into one, at completion for the purposes of multiple dwellings relief (MDR) on an SDLT return. The Tribunal found the annex was not usable as a separate dwelling at completion and that the limited pre-completion works did not amount to a sufficient physical manifestation or sufficiently advanced adaptation under Schedule 6B paragraph 7(2)(b). The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s increased assessment therefore stood.

Abigail Tan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 238 (TC) 20 March 2024 This appeal concerned Ms Tan’s negligible value claim under TCGA s.24 for 150,000 ordinary shares in Kleos (Holdings) Ltd which the Tribunal found were of negligible value on their allotment on 30 September 2017. The Tribunal held the monies recorded as provided by Ms Tan were loans, not subscription for equity, and because the shares were already negligible at acquisition Condition A of s.24(1B) was not satisfied the negligible value claim failed. The Tribunal also refused a very late alternative claim under s.253 TCGA and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC’s closure notices.

Aftab Ahmed v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 236 (TC) 20 March 2024 This case concerns Mr Aftab Ahmed's application for costs after successfully appealing a discovery assessment issued by HMRC for 2013–14. The Tribunal found Mr Ahmed was not careless because his auditors had notified HMRC of the written‑off director loans, and that HMRC acted unreasonably in defending the appeal by persisting with the carelessness/notification argument. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to pay Mr Ahmed's costs and directed the parties to agree quantum or seek summary assessment.

David Henry v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 237 (TC) 20 March 2024 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out a second Tribunal appeal by Mr Henry against a 2020 Closure Notice after his first appeal was struck out for procedural non‑compliance by his representative. The Tribunal held that cause of action estoppel did not prevent striking out the New Appeal because the earlier strike‑out did not decide the substantive cause of action. The Tribunal nevertheless struck out the New Appeal as an abuse of process under Rule 8(3)(c), finding no "special reason" (including reliance on an incompetent representative) to allow relitigation.

Paul Brown v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 245 (TC) 20 March 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC "discovery" assessments for the high income child benefit charge (HICBC) for 2014/15–2017/18 and related Schedule 41 penalties. The Tribunal held HMRC had not proved the assessments were validly made by an identifiable officer (assessments signed only by an anonymous "HICBC Team") and alternatively that most assessments were out of time; it also found Mr Brown had a reasonable excuse so no penalties arose. The appeal was allowed in full.

Ali Khazaal v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 229 (TC) 18 March 2024 This appeal concerned civil evasion penalties after 14,400 cigarettes were seized from the appellant at Heathrow. The FTT found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant knew the cigarettes exceeded the allowance, did not intend to declare them, and acted dishonestly; HMRC's 60% mitigation was upheld and the appeal dismissed, leaving penalties of £2,726. Financial circumstances were held irrelevant to penalty quantum (though may affect time-to-pay).

Investment and Securities Trust Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 230 (TC) 18 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether an option over 1A Cavendish Avenue, acquired by Investment and Securities Trust Ltd (IST), was acquired and held "exclusively" for the purposes of a property development trade so as to qualify for 15% SDLT and ATED relief, and whether a non‑qualifying individual was "permitted" to occupy. The First-tier Tribunal found the option had multiple purposes (including providing drawable funds to IST’s controlling director/shareholder) and so was not held exclusively for the trade, and also concluded IST had not "permitted" occupation in the sense of having effective control to grant or refuse occupation. IST’s appeal was dismissed and the SDLT assessment and ATED closure notices were confirmed as varied.

Jessica Harjono & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 228 (TC) 18 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether a fenced 1.5-acre paddock sold with a barn conversion on 20 December 2021 formed part of the "garden or grounds" of the dwelling for SDLT, or was non-residential because of a grazing agreement. The tribunal held that the relevant characterisation is assessed at the moment of completion, that the undated-but-signed grazing agreement created an encumbrance capable of being considered at completion, and that, on a multifactorial evaluation, the paddock nonetheless formed part of the residential grounds. The FTT dismissed the appellants' appeal and confirmed the higher residential SDLT charge.

Betindex Limited (in liquidation) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 222 (TC) 13 March 2024 Betindex appealed HMRC's refusal to agree retrospectively a non-standard General Betting Duty accounting period so it could obtain repayment of carried‑forward losses. The Tribunal concluded that section 165(3) FA 2014, read in plain terms, does not prevent HMRC from agreeing retrospective non‑standard accounting periods and that HMRC's decision saying they lacked that power was a material error of law. The Tribunal directed HMRC to review their decision but did not order that the retrospective period be agreed.

Newsand Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 221 (TC) 13 March 2024 This case concerns Newsand Ltd's claim to Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) on purchase of a mixed-use building, which HMRC denied by closure notice. HMRC applied to strike out the appeal under FTR 8(3)(c), arguing the claim was untenable; the Tribunal refused to strike out, holding the appellant's case had a realistic prospect of success and that factual inquiry was required on whether the property was "in the process of adaptation" at completion. The appeal will proceed to a full hearing.

Robin Houldsworth v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 224 (TC) 13 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal could entertain a public law ground of legitimate expectation/abuse of power (Ground 3) in an appeal against an HMRC Closure Notice assessing UK residence and additional tax for 2004–05. HMRC applied to strike out Ground 3 and the Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to allow the appeal on that public law ground and struck out Ground 3. The Tribunal concluded its remit is confined to the conclusions and amendments stated in the Closure Notice and cannot be used to give effect to a legitimate expectation claim that goes behind statutory tax liability.

Frances Delaney v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 214 (TC) 11 March 2024 This appeal concerned whether Frances Delaney had entered an unconditional contract to transfer her nursery business to Miss Delaney's Nursery Schools Ltd (MDNSL) before 3 December 2014 so as to qualify for Entrepreneurs' Relief. The Tribunal found that although preparatory steps (incorporation, instructing solicitors, engaging staff, agreeing an underlease and obtaining later consents) were taken, no certain or enforceable contract with agreed terms and consideration existed before that date. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s refusal to allow Entrepreneurs' Relief was upheld.

Safir Ahmed v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 215 (TC) 11 March 2024 This appeal challenged HMRC's decision to refuse restoration of a Volkswagen Golf seized at Dover on 2 July 2022 after 11,260 cigarettes and 1.5kg of tobacco were found concealed in the vehicle. The Tribunal found the Appellant's explanations inconsistent, unsupported and less credible than HMRC's evidence, noted prior similar seizures and deliberate concealment, and held the seized tobacco was for commercial purposes. The Tribunal concluded the Review Decision refusing restoration was reasonable and dismissed the appeal.

Rabina Kajla v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 193 (TC) 7 March 2024 This case concerns appeals against HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2018/19 and 2019/20 totalling £2,181 and a failure-to-notify penalty of £257.40. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC validly made discovery assessments and dismissed the appeal against the tax charged, but accepted the appellant’s evidence of non-receipt of an earlier “nudge” letter and that she lacked specific notice of the charge, so allowed the appeal against the penalty.

Sims Group UK Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 194 (TC) 7 March 2024 Sims Group UK sought permission to bring a nearly two‑year‑late appeal against HMRC’s 6 November 2020 Exclusion Decision from the Transitional EIDR process. The Tribunal accepted Sims’ explanation for delay as coherent but found the length of delay serious and that the public interest in compliance with statutory time limits and prejudice to HMRC outweighed that explanation. Permission to bring the late appeal was refused.

Finola Owens v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 192 (TC) 6 March 2024 This appeal concerned five discovery assessments and associated failure-to-notify penalties for 2016–17 to 2020–21 after HMRC discovered undeclared rental income. The Appellant relied on her agent’s prior letters as notifications and argued time limits and form defects; the Tribunal found the letters lacked required detail (source, tax type, quantum), upheld the discovery assessments as ones a reasonable officer could form under s29 TMA 1970, and upheld the Schedule 41 FA2008 penalties. The appeal was dismissed.

9 Up Consultant Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 365 (TC) 4 March 2024 9 Up Consultant Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to allow £1,754.75 input VAT claimed in its first return. The tribunal found the supplied documents did not meet the invoice particulars required by Regulation 14 VATR 1995, the appellant had not sought corrected invoices from suppliers, and HMRC’s decision to deny the input tax was a lawful exercise of discretion. The appeal was dismissed.

Colchester Institute Corporation (No 2) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 191 (TC) 4 March 2024 Colchester Institute appealed a VAT assessment charging Lennartz output tax and disallowed input tax; the Tribunal, bound by the Upper Tribunal on the "Consideration Point", found grants from the EFA/SFA were properly characterised as consideration for the educational supplies and so CIC succeeded on that point. Because those supplies were for consideration and thus constituted (exempt) supplies, Paragraph 5(4) did not give rise to a deemed output tax liability, and the assessment was reduced to £24,676.66 (the input tax element was not pursued). The appeal therefore succeeded in part.

WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 181 (TC) 4 March 2024 This FTT decision assessed whether 20 fruit-, nut- and oat-based snack bars sold by Morrisons are "confectionery" for VAT purposes. Applying statutory text, prior authorities, dictionary meanings and sensory examination, the tribunal concluded the bars are confectionery (standard-rated) and dismissed Morrisons' appeal.

Cheon Fat Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 180 (TC) 29 February 2024 Cheon Fat Ltd appealed HMRC assessments for VAT, corporation tax and penalties after covert visits and review of records; the Tribunal found that takings had been suppressed throughout the periods for which return data existed and that the suppression was deliberate. Because original Worldpay source data was missing, the Tribunal assessed quantum by grossing up declared cash to assume cash represented 35% of takings, reducing HMRC’s assessments to an additional VAT liability of £76,626 across 18 periods. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part by quashing one discovery assessment and associated penalty for APE 31/03/17, and ordered recalculation of remaining VAT, CT and penalties to reflect its findings.

Baye Oumar Niasse v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 179 (TC) 28 February 2024 This appeal concerned whether agent fees paid on behalf of professional footballer Mr Niasse were deductible under s.336 ITEPA or allowable under s.352 ITEPA as payments calculated by reference to earnings, and whether HMRC validly issued notices to file and penalties. The Tribunal held the agent fees were collateral/preparatory to securing or renegotiating employment and not deductible under s.336, that Mr Niasse did not fall within the narrower statutory definition of “entertainer” in s.352 nor showed the fees were a percentage of earnings, and that HMRC had proved TMA notices were issued and penalties were properly upheld. The appeals were dismissed.

Graeme Wardrop v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 178 (TC) 28 February 2024 This case concerns a permission hearing for a late appeal against HMRC discovery assessments for 2015/16 and 2016/17. The appellant delayed 3 years, 5 months and 30 days in seeking permission, relying on mental health, bankruptcy (a Trust Deed), and later Tribunal decisions; the FTT found the delay serious, that the appellant had been aware of appeal rights and chose the Trust Deed instead of appealing, and that incapacity was not established. Balancing the prejudice to HMRC and the weak prospects of success, the Tribunal refused permission to admit the late appeal.

Mary Davidson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 177 (TC) 28 February 2024 This appeal concerned Mrs Mary Davidson's attempt (filed December 2022) to challenge a Schedule 4 VAT Direction issued on 22 August 1985 and related complaints about HMRC maladministration. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints about HMRC conduct and struck that element out, and it refused permission to admit a very late appeal against the 1985 Direction, applying the three-stage approach and finding delay, prejudice to HMRC and prior opportunities to litigate fatal to the application.

Aspire in the Community Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 176 (TC) 27 February 2024 Aspire appealed HMRC's decision to allow only part of its claimed pre‑registration VAT; it sought disclosure of HMRC internal materials about the decision to treat some pre‑registration VAT "as if" it were input tax under Regulation 111. The Tribunal held the Regulation 111 decision is a discretionary gateway distinct from the statutory quantification of input tax under VATA sections 24–26, and refused Aspire's specific disclosure requests as not relevant to the appellate issues (and alternatively disproportionate). The appeal continues without the additional disclosure; parties were given 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

Thomas Hanlon v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 175 (TC) 27 February 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC's recovery from Thomas Hanlon of a £242,243 VATA section 60 penalty assessed against Cardiff Cash & Carry Ltd for dishonest VAT evasion, and HMRC's decision under s.61 to recover the whole penalty from him as the company's sole director. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that Hanlon either knew of the evasion or deliberately closed his eyes to it, that his conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards, and that no evidence established any other person as a managing officer; accordingly the appeal was dismissed and the full penalty attributed to Hanlon.

Cafe Jinnah LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 159 (TC) 26 February 2024 Cafe Jinnah LLP appealed an HMRC assessment seeking recovery of Eat Out to Help Out Scheme payments; HMRC reduced its assessment on review but the tribunal found Officer Maddison’s subjective belief that the claim was overstated was not objectively reasonable on the information available. The tribunal accepted the appellant’s documentary and witness evidence (sample handwritten bills reconciled to daily takings, RTI wage data, balance sheet/returns, and later cash payments analysis) and allowed the appeal, disallowing HMRC’s assessment and awarding the full claimed £103,351.

Kwasi Adomako Bonsu & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 158 (TC) 26 February 2024 This appeal concerned whether a right to use a communal garden granted with a lease (the Easement) was chargeable as residential land for SDLT purposes or formed part of a mixed/non‑residential transaction. The Tribunal held the Easement was a proprietary easement appurtenant to the leasehold of Apartment 140, that the leasehold was the single main subject‑matter of the transaction, and that section 55(1B) applied so the relevant land was entirely residential (Table A); alternatively the Easement qualified as residential under s.116(1)(c). The appellants' challenge was dismissed and the higher‑rates SDLT assessment was upheld.

Mark Stolkin & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 160 (TC) 26 February 2024 This appeal concerned whether Stolkin Greenford Ltd (SGL) had been carrying on, or preparing to carry on, a trade in relation to part of its West London land such that the individual appellants qualified for entrepreneurs' relief on disposal of their shares. The First-tier Tribunal found SGL remained an investment company: appropriation of the Site to trading stock and extensive planning/value‑enhancement steps did not amount to trading or preparation to trade. The appeals were dismissed and entrepreneurs' relief was refused.

Recep Acar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 182 (TC) 26 February 2024 This appeal concerned an out-of-time challenge by Mr Acar to HMRC’s VAT assessments and a Schedule 41 penalty; the First-tier Tribunal applied the Denton/Martland three-stage approach and refused permission to bring the appeal out of time. The Tribunal found the delay (about 32 months beyond the statutory limit, or c.2.5 years even allowing HMRC’s Covid extension) to be very serious, that no adequate explanation or evidential basis for the substantive appeal was provided, and dismissed the application. The appellant retains the right to seek permission to appeal the Tribunal’s preliminary decision under Rule 39 within 56 days.

Shane Ellis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 161 (TC) 26 February 2024 This case concerns Mr Shane Ellis's appeal against an HMRC assessment recovering two SEISS payments of £14,070, on the ground that he had ceased sole‑trader trading before the pandemic and was operating through a limited company. The First‑tier Tribunal found the assessment was validly made under Schedule 16 to the Finance Act 2020 and that Mr Ellis was not entitled to the SEISS payments, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal declined to entertain wider public law arguments such as legitimate expectation in the statutory appeal.

Stewart Bowman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 162 (TC) 26 February 2024 Mr Bowman appealed HMRC’s refusal of Transfer of Residence (TofR) relief for goods remaining in New Zealand. The Tribunal found he became normally resident in the UK on 22 September 2012 and that the goods were not declared/imported within the required 12 months, so Article 11(1)(e)(ii) was not satisfied. The Tribunal also found no exceptional circumstances justified waiving the 12‑month rule and dismissed the appeal.

Ali Salamat v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 150 (TC) 20 February 2024 This appeal concerned civil evasion penalties of £917 imposed after Mr Salamat arrived from Pakistan with 28 cartons (5,600 cigarettes) seized at Manchester Airport and condemned. The Tribunal, on the papers, found he entered the green channel without declaring goods in excess of limits and was therefore dishonest, dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalties. The Tribunal also rejected mitigation based on alleged financial hardship.

Antri Georgiou v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 152 (TC) 20 February 2024 This appeal concerned whether Ms Georgiou qualified for Transfer of Residence (ToR) relief for a car under the 1992 Order given the six‑month possession/use requirement and apparent conflict with later 2020 Regulations/UK Reliefs guidance. The Tribunal held she met Article 11(1)(c) of the 1992 Order because possession and use in Cyprus exceeded six months and that an application made before actual importation can be assessed by reference to possession/use up to the future importation date; the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal also found she did not meet the 2020 Regulations’ six‑month criterion and there were no exceptional circumstances to waive it, but the 2020 Regulations did not automatically displace relief available under the 1992 Order.

Kent Couriers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 145 (TC) 20 February 2024 Kent Couriers, a Palletways Network member, appealed an excise duty assessment and a wrongdoing penalty after six pallets of vodka labelled to it were seized entering the UK. The Tribunal found Kent was neither “holding” nor “making the delivery” at the excise duty point and quashed the excise duty assessment, but held Kent was “concerned in…dealing with” the goods and imposed a reduced wrongdoing penalty of £7,235.20 (20% of the duty) after maximum disclosure reduction.

Steven Hague v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 139 (TC) 19 February 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and related penalties for tax years 2007‑08 to 2015‑16 where Mr Hague filed no returns and had numerous unexplained bank credits. The Tribunal found HMRC’s officer had the requisite belief and that s36 extended time limits, upheld HMRC’s revised best‑judgment assessments totalling £67,177.01 and penalties totalling £43,665.06 (65% after mitigation), and dismissed the appeal.

Esmat Farsi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 135 (TC) 16 February 2024 This appeal concerned civil evasion penalties totalling £3,306 imposed after Ms Farsi arrived from Iran carrying 8,500 foil‑wrapped cigarettes, passed through the green channel and declared "no cigarettes." The Tribunal found she knew she was carrying quantities likely to exceed allowances, acted dishonestly in making an untrue declaration, accepted 20% mitigation for disclosure and cooperation, and reduced the upheld penalty to £2,784. The appeal was dismissed.

H & H Contract Scaffolding Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 151 (TC) 16 February 2024 H & H submitted an amended CT600 claiming R&D tax credit via an agent, Legal Rooms; HMRC disallowed the claim, assessed a careless inaccuracy penalty under Schedule 24 FA 2007 and refused to suspend it. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC had not shown the inaccuracy was due to carelessness and, on the balance of probabilities, the appellant had taken reasonable care in engaging and checking its agent, so the penalty assessment was cancelled. The Tribunal did not decide the separate suspension (SMART) issue.

4Site Services London Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 143 (TC) 15 February 2024 This case records procedural rulings in consolidated appeals by 4Site and others against HMRC relating to VAT assessments and penalties arising from supplies made through subcontractors. The Tribunal refused the appellants’ applications to bar HMRC and for further particulars, admitted HMRC’s supplemental bundle and witness statements, stayed related s.73 appeals pending the Kittel appeals, and issued directions including timetable extensions; costs were ordered in the cause of the consolidated Kittel appeal.

L & L Europe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 144 (TC) 13 February 2024 This appeal concerned whether 10% "cashback" payments credited to losing online casino players by L & L Europe Ltd were deductible as expenditure on prizes for Remote Gaming Duty under ss157 and 160 Finance Act 2014. The First-tier Tribunal found the cashback was a potential outcome inherent in the gaming contract and was credited as withdrawable cash, so it qualified as prizes "which have been won" (or, alternatively, was treated as a return of part of the gaming payment under s160(3)) and allowed the appeal, overturning HMRC's assessment.

SC Business Gateway Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 140 (TC) 13 February 2024 SC Business Gateway Ltd applied under s.84(3B) VATA for postponement of payment of a VAT assessment for 02/21–01/22 on grounds of hardship. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence thin and materially inconsistent, holding that the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof that payment or deposit would cause hardship, and dismissed the hardship application; the substantive appeal was not decided. The appellant may apply for permission to appeal within 56 days.

Adrian Ward v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 142 (TC) 12 February 2024 This case concerned whether Mr Adrian Ward was liable to the High‑Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2018/19 by being "entitled to an amount in respect of child benefit" under condition A of s.681B ITEPA. The Tribunal held that entitlement requires a present right to specific monetary payments, normally evidenced by an award of child benefit, and that directing payments to a third party does not avoid liability. Applying that test, the Tribunal found Mr Ward had been awarded child benefit and dismissed his appeal, upholding HMRC's assessment for £1,076.

Monmore Properties Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 137 (TC) 12 February 2024 This case concerned whether Monmore had validly appealed sums of £3,859,888 relating to VAT periods 06/11–06/12 and whether HMRC's assessments for those periods were time‑barred. The Tribunal found Monmore had in time appealed the bottom‑line sums for the Disputed Periods and held that the assessments for 06/11–06/12 were invalid as made outside the statutory time limit, so the sums for those periods are not due. Permission to appeal may be sought within 56 days.

Scott Thompson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 138 (TC) 12 February 2024 This case concerned a very late appeal by Scott Thompson against a Schedule 24 penalty imposed by HMRC for inaccuracies in his 2014 self-assessment. The FTT allowed the late appeal, held HMRC had not proved deliberate behaviour (so the deliberate-behaviour penalty was cancelled), but found the appellant had failed to take reasonable care and was therefore liable to a carelessness penalty, with HMRC to reassess the penalty amount.

The Commissioners for HMRC v IPS Progression Limited [2024] UKFTT 136 (TC) 12 February 2024 The Tribunal determined that IPS Progression Ltd's umbrella PAYE scheme arrangements were "notifiable arrangements" under Part 7 FA 2004 (Description 5) because standardised documentation and repeated use across many employees brought the model within the description. IPS was a promoter required to disclose under s308(3) but did not provide the prescribed information until April/May 2022, had no reasonable excuse for the delay, and the Tribunal refused to admit post‑hearing evidence arguing time‑bar. Having balanced relevant factors the Tribunal imposed a s98C penalty of £900,000.

H Ripley & Co Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 125 (TC) 7 February 2024 H Ripley & Co Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to accept zero-rating for 72 supplies of scrap copper on the ground that it had proved removal from the UK. The Tribunal found HR had not held valid commercial evidence within the three‑month VN 725 time limit and that key documents (boarding cards, e‑mails) were produced too late and other documents (CMRs, Annex VIIs, weighbridge tickets) were inadequately completed. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's VAT adjustments were upheld.

Marie Guerlain-Desai v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 117 (TC) 7 February 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC's application for an extension of time and relief from sanctions to file a Statement of Case 64 days late in an SDLT dispute with Ms Guerlain-Desai. The Tribunal found the delay serious and that HMRC's administrative oversight did not constitute a "good reason," but granted relief after applying the Denton/Martland balancing exercise, permitting HMRC to file and rely on the late Statement of Case. The decision records reasons and preserves a right to apply for permission to appeal.

Ian Holland v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 123 (TC) 6 February 2024 This case concerns Mr Holland's appeal against HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2018/19 and 2019/20. The Tribunal found he honestly did not receive the Child Benefit payments but nonetheless remained statutorily "entitled" because he met the statutory "responsible" test by making sufficient maintenance payments and had not terminated his claim. As a result Condition A of section 681B ITEPA was satisfied and the HICBC assessments were confirmed; HMRC had already cancelled associated penalties.

Laurence Supply Co (Leather Goods) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 124 (TC) 6 February 2024 Laurence Supply appealed a C18 Post Clearance Demand Note issued by HMRC alleging misclassification of imported handbags and purses. The Tribunal inspected two sample items and held Item C is correctly classified as CN 4202 29 00 00 ("other") rather than as plastic sheeting, reducing the C18 by £2,064.36, but Laurence Supply failed to discharge the burden of proof on quantum for the remaining goods so the rest of the assessment was upheld. The Tribunal declined to entertain domestic public law or legitimate expectation challenges to the C18 in this appeal.

Revive Corporation Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 127 (TC) 6 February 2024 This appeal concerned whether Revive Corporation Ltd (RCL) should have known that 20 purchases from PPSM, onward sold largely to GECX, were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion. The Tribunal, on remittal from the Upper Tribunal, found the factual connection to MTIC fraud proved, that RCL did not have actual knowledge but ought to have known of the connection given the surrounding circumstances and its limited enquiries, and dismissed RCL’s appeal, upholding HMRC’s denial of input tax of £1,012,500.90.

Roy Baker v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 126 (TC) 6 February 2024 This appeal concerned follower‑notice penalties issued to Roy Baker in respect of an Isle of Man scheme and whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances for him not to take corrective action by the relevant date. The Tribunal accepted Baker's evidence of reliance on his professional adviser and HMRC's repeated errors and vacillating position on Class 4 NICs, found his failure to act was objectively reasonable, and therefore cancelled the follower‑notice penalties. The Tribunal also held that, if a penalty were payable, HMRC had correctly calculated a 42% penalty rate after allowing cooperation credit.

Passion Incorporated Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 122 (TC) 5 February 2024 Passion Incorporated Ltd appealed HMRC decisions disallowing input VAT for multiple periods and a best judgment VAT assessment for 10/19. The Tribunal found the company failed to show with sufficiently detailed evidence that the expenditures giving rise to input VAT were incurred for the purposes of its business and upheld HMRC's disallowances and the best judgment assessment, with a minor agreed correction increasing one refund by £47.83. The appeal was dismissed.

Duelfuel Nutrition Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 104 (TC) 2 February 2024 Duelfuel sold prepackaged twin-packs (a flapjack plus a cake slice or brownie) marketed as high‑protein performance/recovery foods; HMRC assessed them as standard‑rated “confectionery” and the Tribunal dismissed Duelfuel’s appeal. The Tribunal found the products were not “cakes” under Excepted Item 2 on a multifactorial ordinary‑person assessment but were caught by Note 5 to Schedule 8 Group 1, which deems “sweetened prepared food normally eaten with the fingers” to be confectionery. Procedurally, a late supplemental witness statement was excluded, an amended bundle and product plates were admitted, and till receipts were admitted with limited weight.

Matthew Grimmer v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 119 (TC) 2 February 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2019/20 and related Schedule 41 penalties. The Tribunal found the 2017/18–2019/20 discovery assessments were in time and dismissed those appeals, but concluded the 2015/16 and 2016/17 assessments were out of time because HMRC could not rely on extended limitations; those two assessments were allowed. All Schedule 41 penalties were cancelled after the Tribunal accepted Mr Grimmer had a reasonable excuse for non-notification and acted without unreasonable delay once aware.

NBC (Administration Services) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 120 (TC) 2 February 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of registration (deregistration) of three pension schemes administered by NBC and related Schedule 36 information notices. The tribunal held the statutory gating test for deregistration is subjective ("appears to HMRC") but HMRC's exercise of discretion and process are reviewable for fairness and reasonableness. Applying that test, Halkin's deregistration was upheld, but the withdrawals of Headforte and Isles & Storer were found to have been improperly effected and those schemes should be treated as remaining registered; the Schedule 36 notices were valid but varied in specified particulars.

Paul Burchett v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 121 (TC) 2 February 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) and Schedule 41 failure-to-notify penalties for tax years 2012/13–2018/19. The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction only for certain years, held the challenged discovery assessments to be "relevant protected assessments" under FA 2022 but nonetheless out of time because the taxpayer established a reasonable excuse (unawareness of HICBC until January 2021), and cancelled the Schedule 41 penalties on reasonable-excuse and prompt-action grounds. The Tribunal rejected that the appeal was subject to a temporary statutory pause before 27 October 2021.

Edward Newfield v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 116 (TC) 26 January 2024 This appeal concerned whether s66 TCGA 1992 (a deeming provision) treated the appellant as beneficial owner of a property for CGT from 31 July 1997 until its sale in 2016, and whether HMRC were estopped from assessing him. The First-tier Tribunal held that s66 did apply, so the appellant was treated as beneficial owner throughout, and rejected the promissory‑estoppel/assurance argument. The discovery assessment under s29 TMA was found valid and the assessment calculating the gain was upheld; the appeal was dismissed. The tribunal admitted the late notice of appeal in its discretion.

Kevin Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 101 (TC) 26 January 2024 This case concerns Mr and Mrs Smith seeking permission for a ten-month-late appeal to the First-tier Tribunal against HMRC’s refusal of multiple dwellings relief for SDLT. The Tribunal found the delay to be serious and significant, and refused permission to bring the late appeal because the need for efficient litigation, respect for statutory time limits, and prejudice to HMRC outweighed the prejudice to the taxpayers. The decision notes a right to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal within 56 days.

Martin Peter Byrne and Ellena Byrne t/a EVA v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 103 (TC) 26 January 2024 This appeal challenged HMRC s73 VATA assessments based on an unannounced uplift of a 4-day receipts book which HMRC used to estimate undeclared cash takings for 03/12–09/17. The Tribunal found HMRC acted in good faith, the 4‑day sample (revised to 22.4% cash) was the best available representative period, and the appellants failed to prove the assessment quantum wrong or to provide a more reliable methodology. The appeals were dismissed and the revised HMRC assessment stands.

Paul Baron v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 102 (TC) 26 January 2024 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and failure-to-notify penalties for the Higher Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2019/20. The Tribunal found Mr Baron was unaware of HICBC until 2021 and that discovery assessments for 2017/18–2019/20 were within time and stand, while those for 2015/16 and 2016/17 were time-barred and cancelled. The Tribunal upheld failure-to-notify penalties because any reasonable excuse ended when HMRC correspondence was received in January 2021 and the appellant did not remedy the position without unreasonable delay.

Arshad Mahmood v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 114 (TC) 25 January 2024 This appeal concerned whether a 2016 transfer of ten commercial properties from Mr Mahmood to a company owned by his wife could be treated as never having occurred because the parties were commonly mistaken about its tax consequences, and whether HMRC needed to amend the taxpayer's electronic return separately from a closure notice for a tax liability to arise. The Tribunal held the common mistake did not void the transfer because it did not go to the subject matter or performance of the contract. The Tribunal also held that a valid closure notice stating amended figures is sufficient to amend a self-assessment under s 28A TMA and create a tax liability, and it reduced the assessed tax to £36,316 and the penalty to £9,805.32.

Metatron DOO v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 115 (TC) 25 January 2024 This case concerns HMRC's strike‑out applications against VAT refund appeals by a Slovenian VAT‑registered business that bought goods from UK sellers via eBay. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear appeals against refusals under the VATA statutory refund scheme but struck out the VATA‑based claims as having no reasonable prospect of success (regulation 173B / Notice 723A excluded recovery where VAT was charged on supplies dispatched to another member state). The Tribunal also held it had no jurisdiction to entertain a direct (Reemtsma) recovery claim and struck that part out, with no power to transfer it to a court.

Stephen Ray v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 141 (TC) 25 January 2024 Mr Ray sought permission to notify late appeals against 19 penalty/surcharge notices arising from Accelerated Payment Notices; the Tribunal applied the three‑stage Martland/Denton approach. It found delays of over five years, no adequate reason for the delay (mental‑health claims lacked medical support), and weak merits on the substantive grounds, and refused permission to bring late appeals. The decision records rights to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

The APP Accounting Group Limited v Uberdev Limited & Anor [2024] UKFTT 100 (TC) 25 January 2024 This case concerns applications by Uberdev Ltd and Rosetta Software Ltd appealing HMRC Regulation 80 determinations that they are managed service companies; The APP Accounting Group Ltd (TAAG), the adviser/MSC provider for both, sought to be joined as a respondent. The First-tier Tribunal allowed TAAG to be added, finding it has a significant contingent financial interest and can adduce material evidence, and rejected HMRC’s abuse of process argument. The Tribunal made procedural directions for TAAG to file a statement of case and set deadlines for further case management.

The Boston Consulting Group UK LLP & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 84 (TC) 23 January 2024 The case concerns whether "Capital Interests" granted to former BCG Inc. partners on conversion to a UK LLP were part of LLP capital or were remuneration taxable as income for 2012/13–2016/17; HMRC issued partnership amendments and discovery assessments treating the proceeds as income. The Tribunal found the Capital Interests were not LLP capital or goodwill but contractual rights against BCG Ltd to payments referenced to BCG Inc share movements and formed part of the partners' remuneration, so receipts on "sale" were income in nature (s.687 ITTOIA applied, and Chapter 4 Part 13 ITA would apply if not). Procedurally, some late factual points from HMRC were permitted but many of HMRC's discovery amendments/assessments were held invalid or out of time, leading to allowance of the LLP's appeal against s.30B amendments and success for several individual appeals on validity grounds.

Canadian Solar EMEA GmbH v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 85 (TC) 22 January 2024 Canadian Solar EMEA appealed HMRC demands for anti‑dumping duty, countervailing duty and import VAT on 13 consignments of solar modules assembled in Vietnam from Taiwanese cells. The Tribunal held HMRC had validly notified the customs debt, that the Implementing Regulations' phrase "consigned from" covers indirect consignments where origin is unchanged (so duties applied), and that the appellant's Feb 2021 amended declarations could not be accepted; however, on the facts the Tribunal granted remission under Article 120 UCC and relieved the appellant of the assessed sums. Permission to appeal was reserved.

Paul Hunt & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 78 (TC) 22 January 2024 This case concerns HMRC's application to stay appeals by Paul Hunt & others challenging the tax treatment of a 22 April 2015 capital reduction by Golf Holdings Ltd, pending resolution of an earlier related appeal focussing on the statutory meaning of "relevant consideration" (s685(4)) and the effect of s685(6). The tribunal found the earlier appeal will provide material assistance on that construction point and granted a stay of these appeals until 30 days after the earlier appeal's final determination. The appellants' request to participate in the earlier appeal was refused, and directions on recategorisation and disclosure will be issued.

Minstrell Recruitment Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 82 (TC) 19 January 2024 This appeal concerned MRL's claim to input tax on supplies from three suppliers and related companies' applications for VAT registration after HMRC refused on fraud grounds. The Tribunal found the suppliers' VAT shortfalls were caused by fraud, that the supplier companies and MRL were under common control, and that knowledge of the fraud was attributable to MRL's controllers. All appeals were dismissed.

Alpha Republic Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 68 (TC) 17 January 2024 Alpha Republic unsuccessfully applied to strike out and bar HMRC's claim; HMRC then sought costs under Rule 10(1)(b). The Tribunal found Alpha Republic acted unreasonably and failed to cooperate (including withdrawing part of its application at short notice and not complying with directions) and ordered it to pay HMRC's costs on the standard basis, summarily assessed at £12,873.90.

Essex Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 69 (TC) 17 January 2024 Essex Trading Limited sought specific disclosure of documents from HMRC relating to seized alcohol and third-party correspondence from Hi Line's liquidators; HMRC opposed disclosure citing confidentiality under CRCA and irrelevance. The Tribunal found HMRC's opposition unreasonable because s18(2)(c) permitted disclosure for civil proceedings and the documents raised a real issue about ownership of excess goods. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to pay ETL's costs, summarily assessed at £3,461.50, payable within 28 days.

Three Shires Trailers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 79 (TC) 17 January 2024 Three Shires Trailers appealed HMRC's imposition of output VAT on the basis that two Land Rover Discoverys had been converted from commercial vehicles into non-qualifying cars, triggering a self-supply. The Tribunal found the vehicles had been converted by fitting fold‑up seats and clearing side/rear windows, accepted evidence they were used exclusively for business, concluded they were qualifying motor cars for Article 7 purposes and allowed the appeal. HMRC's output tax charge was cancelled and the appellant may recover input tax.

Alastair Cattrell v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 67 (TC) 16 January 2024 Mr Cattrell appealed against an HMRC closure notice and assessment amending his 2003/04 return after participating in a gilt-strip scheme; the central issue was whether HMRC validly issued, sent and served a notice of enquiry on or about 28 April 2005 and whether estoppel by convention barred reliance on any invalidity. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that a notice of enquiry was issued, sent and received by Mr Cattrell around 28 April 2005, and rejected estoppel by convention on the facts. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's closure notice and assessment stand.

Derek Shaw Racing Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 83 (TC) 16 January 2024 Derek Shaw Racing Limited appealed a Schedule 19 Finance Act 2021 penalty for non‑payment of deferred VAT and for not entering payment arrangements by the 30 June 2021 deadline. The Tribunal found DSRL had a reasonable excuse for failing to pay (insufficient funds caused by COVID‑19) but did not establish a reasonable excuse for failing to agree payment arrangements by the deadline, and upheld the penalty.

H Tideswell & Sons Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 54 (TC) 16 January 2024 This appeal concerned excise duty assessments and Schedule 41 penalties after HMRC seized large quantities of non-UK duty paid cigarettes at premises occupied by Tideswell. The Tribunal held that the statutory legal burden remained on Tideswell to prove any earlier duty point and that HMRC did not hold evidence sufficient to identify such a point, but Tideswell failed to prove a specific earlier duty point so the liability assessments were upheld. The Tribunal found the conduct was careless rather than deliberate and substituted lower penalties at 12% of PLR.

Marion Trading Limited v The Director of Border Revenue [2024] UKFTT 55 (TC) 16 January 2024 Marion Trading Ltd appealed Border Force’s refusal to restore 18 pallets of alcohol seized for lack of an import declaration and excise duty. The Tribunal found the review officer disregarded material contemporaneous evidence and failed to make reasonable enquiries or put alleged prior misconduct to Marion Trading, and concluded no reasonable officer could have found a deliberate attempt to evade duty. The review decision was set aside and Border Force was directed to conduct a further review taking the Tribunal’s findings into account.

Sabbir Patwary v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 53 (TC) 16 January 2024 This appeal concerned whether 19 Emmott Close was the appellant’s only or main residence for PPR relief when sold; HMRC denied PPR and the appellant bore the burden of proof. The Tribunal found the appellant’s witness statement and documents addressed to the property insufficient to show the necessary permanence, continuity or expectation of continuity of residence and dismissed the appeal. HMRC’s assessment was upheld.

Sarah Godliman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 81 (TC) 16 January 2024 This appeal challenged Schedule 55 penalties (£700 each) for late 2017–18 and 2018–19 self‑assessment returns filed in October 2021. The Tribunal found the returns disclosed both employment and self‑employment income, the appellant gave no reasonable excuse or evidence of attempts to correct matters, and there were no special circumstances to reduce penalties. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties confirmed.

James Keighley & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 30 (TC) 8 January 2024 This case concerns James Keighley’s use of a company credit card for personal expenditure and Primeur Ltd’s partial write-off of a loan to Valley Dale Properties Ltd (VDP), with related discovery assessments, corporation tax adjustments and penalties. The Tribunal found Mr Keighley’s failures to declare benefits were deliberate (including “blind-eye” knowledge), upheld HMRC’s use of the presumption of continuity to extend assessments back to 2001, and dismissed his appeals; it also found the company’s partial release of secured rights had an unallowable purpose so CT relief was disallowed for the write-off, upheld the October 2020 discovery assessment, allowed part of the petty-cash claim (80%) and adjusted penalties/NICs down to carelessness in some respects.

39 Fitzjohns Avenue Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 28 (TC) 4 January 2024 This First-tier Tribunal case concerned a claim that 39 Fitzjohn's Avenue was mixed-use for SDLT because a Thameslink ventilation shaft and a purported workshop tenancy affected the property's status. The Tribunal found the ventilation apparatus and linked rights did not prevent the contiguous land forming the dwelling's grounds, and there was no reliable evidence of a commercial tenancy or that parts of the building were unsuitable for use as a dwelling. The property was held wholly residential for SDLT and the appellant's overpayment claim was dismissed.

99p Recycling Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 13 (TC) 4 January 2024 99P Recycling Ltd appealed an HMRC customs duty assessment but failed to comply with an unless order to pay the duty or obtain a hardship certificate, and the appeal was struck out. 99P applied slightly late to reinstate; the Tribunal admitted the late application but refused to reinstate the appeal, finding the breach of the unless order very serious and 99P had not shown sufficient efforts to comply or to file a hardship application. The appeal remains struck out.

Asif Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 80 (TC) 4 January 2024 This appeal challenged a £1,139 HMRC civil evasion penalty for undeclared shisha tobacco and cigarettes seized at Manchester Airport. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellant's evidence inconsistent and unreliable, accepted HMRC's witness, applied the Ivey two-stage test and concluded the appellant knew (or deliberately closed his eyes to) the allowance limits, and dismissed the appeal, leaving mitigation unchanged.

New Claire Wine Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 14 (TC) 4 January 2024 HMRC issued discovery corporation tax assessments, VAT assessments and deliberate‑inaccuracy penalties against New Claire Wine Ltd based on a stock‑flow exercise and material extracted from an Italian server linked to The Italian Wine Company (TIWC). The First‑tier Tribunal admitted the Italian server material, found HMRC’s VAT assessments were made to the best of their judgment, and upheld the Schedule 18 discovery assessments and penalties (with a limited arithmetic adjustment). The appeals were dismissed in principle and quantum was remitted to the parties to agree, failing which the Tribunal will determine it.

Trustees of the Peter Buckley Settlement v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 29 (TC) 4 January 2024 This appeal concerned whether Entrepreneurs' Relief (ER) could be claimed on sale of the single ordinary share in Peter Buckley Clitheroe Ltd when that share was registered in the trustees' names for an interest in possession trust whose life tenant/trustee was Mr Buckley. The Tribunal held the statutory requirement that the qualifying individual hold at least 5% of the ordinary share capital and related voting rights in their personal capacity was not met because the registered share belonged to the trust, not personally to Mr Buckley. HMRC was correct to disallow ER and the trustees' appeal was dismissed; the additional CGT remained payable.

Laurence Onwufuju v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 52 (TC) 3 January 2024 This appeal concerned a 47-day-late challenge to a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) issued to Mr Onwufuju in respect of a £1,712,097.10 company penalty relating to Webstar Dixon Ltd’s undeclared VAT. The tribunal found the PLN had been posted in April 2022 to the correct address, the appellant’s appeal was therefore out of time, and his account of non-receipt and lack of knowledge was not credible. Permission to bring the late appeal was refused and the judge said that, if permission had been granted, the substantive appeal would have been struck out as having only fanciful prospects of success.

Paul Judd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 51 (TC) 3 January 2024 This is a case management decision on Paul Judd's application to amend his grounds of appeal against a paragraph 19 notice apportioning a company penalty to him. The Tribunal refused to allow an amendment advancing a "no inaccuracy" ground because the company's earlier litigation — in which Judd was heavily involved and was the sole witness — necessarily implied inaccuracies in the company's VAT returns and would make re‑litigation an abuse of process. The Tribunal allowed amended grounds to proceed on issues of whether any inaccuracy was deliberate or attributable to Judd, and directed HMRC to serve a statement of case within 60 days.

Vikrant Bhargava v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 66 (TC) 3 January 2024 This case concerns Mr Bhargava's late application for costs after HMRC withdrew opposition to his appeal; the Tribunal applied a three-stage test to the lateness and examined the sufficiency of the costs schedule. The Tribunal found the delay serious with no good reason, and that the costs schedule was materially deficient (insufficient detail, missing certification, unexplained pre-appeal costs and questionable rates). Permission to file the costs application out of time was refused.

Bandstream Media and Corporate Communications Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 49 (TC) 22 December 2023 This appeal concerned whether Bandstream could base Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) claims for Mr Smith on a salary increase to £2,500 made after 19 March 2020, rather than on the £600 taxable pay shown on RTI submissions up to that date. The tribunal found the qualifying reference salary is fixed by the RTI return made on or before the CJRS day (19 March 2020), and paragraph 7.12 of the Coronavirus Direction does not permit increasing that reference by after‑the‑event top-ups to claim higher support. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's Schedule 16 assessments (as adjusted) were upheld.

Bandstream Media and Corporate Communications Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 11 (TC) 22 December 2023 Bandstream appealed HMRC assessments denying CJRS claims made for an employee (Mr Smith) whose RTI showed taxable pay of £600/month up to 31 March 2020 but who was paid £2,500/month thereafter. The Tribunal held paragraph 7.12 of the Coronavirus Direction did not permit using the later increased salary to inflate CJRS claims; the reference salary is fixed by the RTI submission on or before the CJRS reference day (19 March 2020). The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's assessments were upheld as adjusted.

Paul Tomas v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 15 (TC) 22 December 2023 This Tribunal refused Mr Tomas permission to bring a late appeal against HICBC assessments and failure-to-notify penalties after finding his Tribunal appeal was nearly four months out of time. The Tribunal rejected his explanation that he believed an appeal was already in train as vague and outweighed by clear written appeal notices and concluded the balance of factors favoured refusal. The decision records the statutory provisions, parties' arguments, and notes the right to seek permission to appeal the Tribunal's decision.

Star-Images Enterprises Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 50 (TC) 22 December 2023 This appeal concerned tariff classification of 60 imported licensed collectible figures and packaged items, with HMRC having reclassified many items and issued demands. The Tribunal held classification must be based on objective external physical characteristics and presentation, not on characters' backstories or non-physical attributes, and applied Note 3 to determine when included items are accessories to be classified with the figures or instead make a package a set. The appeal was allowed in part and refused in part, with individual items classified as recorded and one item left for potential remittal.

Delphi Derivatives Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 722 (TC) 21 December 2023 This appeal concerned Schedule 24 FA 2007 penalties assessed against Delphi for inaccuracies in P35 PAYE returns arising from four tranches paid into a Clavis/Herald EBT. The Tribunal found the returns understated PAYE/NICs, held tranches 1–3 were careless (failure to take reasonable care) and tranche 4 deliberate, and dismissed the appeal, affirming HMRC’s penalties totaling £1,572,260.16.

Neil Wills v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 12 (TC) 20 December 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for HICBC for 2013/14–2019/20 and related Schedule 41 failure-to-notify penalties. The Tribunal held the assessments for 2016/17–2019/20 valid and within the ordinary four-year limit, but cancelled the 2013/14–2015/16 discovery assessments as out of time because Mr Wills established a reasonable excuse for late notification; all penalties were cancelled.

CF Booth Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 347 (TC) 19 December 2023 CF Booth Ltd appealed Schedule 24 FA 2007 penalties totalling £1,444,813.71 assessed by HMRC for deliberate (but not concealed) inaccuracies in VAT returns, largely arising from Kittel-style input tax disallowances and some zero-rating errors. The Tribunal found CFB’s disclosure was only middling — cooperative but passive and not proactively admitting knowledge of fraud — and upheld HMRC’s applied penalty percentages and special-reduction decision. The Tribunal also found the penalties were not disproportionate on the facts and dismissed the appeal.

Pracyva Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 32 (TC) 18 December 2023 This appeal concerned Pracyva Ltd's challenges to VAT default surcharges for periods 9/21 and 12/21. The Tribunal found the 12/21 surcharge had been cancelled by HMRC and dismissed the appeal against the 9/21 surcharge, holding the taxpayer's time to pay request was made after the due date and that the taxpayer did not have a reasonable excuse for late payment.

Bolt Services UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1043 (TC) 15 December 2023 Bolt supplies on‑demand private hire journeys via its app and, acting as principal from 1 August 2022, treated those supplies as falling within the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS). HMRC decided TOMS did not apply; the First‑tier Tribunal allowed Bolt's appeal, holding that the passenger transport services supplied by Bolt are services of a kind commonly provided by tour operators or travel agents and therefore can fall within TOMS. The Tribunal also found that the services bought in from drivers were for the direct benefit of travellers and were not in‑house supplies nor materially altered so as to fall outside the scheme.

Pulak Rakshit & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1044 (TC) 15 December 2023 This case concerned appeals against HMRC closure notices and discovery assessments issued in relation to SDLT returns submitted after a marketed sale-and-leaseback scheme. The Tribunal held that HMRC's 8 June 2011 correspondence (a letter to the taxpayers enclosing a letter to their agent) provided sufficient notice of an intention to enquire into the relevant returns, rejected estoppel and without‑prejudice privilege arguments, found discovery established on unchallenged officer evidence, and dismissed the appeals.

Realreed Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1042 (TC) 15 December 2023 This case concerned whether lettings of serviced apartments at Chelsea Cloisters by Realreed were VAT-exempt grants of rights over land or excluded from exemption as "the provision in an hotel, inn, boarding house or similar establishment of sleeping accommodation" (Item 1(d), Sch 9 VATA). The Tribunal held Chelsea Cloisters was similar to a hotel, so the lettings were excluded from the land exemption, applied para.9 Schedule 6 to limit Realreed's taxable value for long stays to 20% of its own supply, and dismissed Realreed's penalty appeal for careless inaccuracy.

Aesthetic-Doctor.Com Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 48 (TC) 12 December 2023 This appeal concerned whether supplies by a private aesthetic clinic led by Dr McKeown qualified as exempt medical care under Item 1 Group 7 Schedule 9 VATA (and Article 132(1)(c)). The FTT found on the balance of probabilities that the clinic's overall purpose was cosmetic, contemporaneous records were generally inadequate to show a therapeutic purpose, and mere involvement of registered health professionals did not make the services exempt. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's compulsory registration and s73 assessments upheld.

Andrew Newall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 47 (TC) 11 December 2023 This appeal concerned HICBC discovery assessments for 2017/18–2019/20 (total £2,248) and associated Schedule 41 penalties (£604.08). The tribunal found HMRC made a valid discovery on 28 April 2021 and issued assessments in time. The appellant had a reasonable excuse for non-notification only until he received HMRC's nudge/final reminder by 13 December 2019; thereafter he failed to engage within a reasonable time and the penalties were upheld. Appeals dismissed.

PD & MJ Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 38 (TC) 11 December 2023 This case concerned whether IR35 applied to services provided by Mr Phil Thompson through his company PD & MJ Ltd to Sky UK as a Soccer Saturday pundit. The Tribunal construed the contractual terms (including Sky's "first call", control over timing/location, editorial rights and exclusivity restrictions) and held the hypothetical direct contract would have been a contract of employment. As a result the IR35 rules applied and the appellant's appeal against HMRC's PAYE and NICs assessments for 2013/14–2017/18 was dismissed.

Jonathan Harwood v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 46 (TC) 8 December 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and failure-to-notify penalties for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2016/17–2018/19. The tribunal found the appellant did not receive HMRC’s 2019 “nudge” and final reminder, accepted his ignorance of the law as a reasonable excuse until HMRC’s April 2021 letter, allowed the penalties to be cancelled, upheld the assessments for 2017/18 and 2018/19, and set aside the 2016/17 assessment as time-barred.

MW High Tech Projects UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1040 (TC) 5 December 2023 MW High Tech Projects UK Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to pay a 2017 RDEC claim on the basis that the company's 2017 and 2018 published accounts were prepared on a non-going-concern basis. The Tribunal held the statutory test in s 104 CTA 2009 requires reliance on the latest published accounts and will not go behind them; because the 2017/2018 accounts were not prepared on a going concern basis the 2017 RDEC claim was extinguished and HMRC's decision was upheld. The Tribunal also found no prior period adjustment in the 2019 accounts that retrospectively altered the earlier published accounts, and held Finance Act 2023 amendments do not apply retrospectively.

Felicity Harber v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1007 (TC) 4 December 2023 This appeal concerned a 20% failure-to-notify CGT penalty of £3,265.11 after Mrs Harber sold a property and did not notify HMRC by the statutory deadline. The Tribunal found nine FTT decisions relied on by the appellant were fabricated AI-generated summaries, rejected her mental health and ignorance-of-law defences after applying the Perrin test, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty. The decision records that parties should verify authorities and may not evade penalties by relying on inauthentic or unverified case law.

Clive Green v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1006 (TC) 1 December 2023 This case concerns Mr Green's application for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge for 2014/15–2016/17. The tribunal applied the three-stage Martland test, found a 1,067‑day delay, rejected the appellant's reasons (including reliance on the Wilkes decision) as not meritorious, and refused permission because of the length of delay, limited prospects of success, and prejudice against allowing the late appeal.

Atholl House Productions Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 37 (TC) 29 November 2023 This appeal concerned whether IR35 applied to arrangements under which Atholl House supplied presenter Kaye Adams to the BBC; after remittal the Tribunal found the hypothetical contracts (derived from the actual written agreements and known surrounding circumstances) were contracts for services and upheld Atholl House's appeal. The Tribunal treated Stages 3A (mutuality) and 3B (control) as satisfied and, on a balanced assessment of Stage 3C (other terms and circumstances known to both parties), concluded the relationship was self‑employment rather than employment.

OOCL UK Branch v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 996 (TC) 24 November 2023 OOCL UK Branch appealed HMRC determinations that one‑off discretionary payments funded by the company's former majority shareholder to UK employees were taxable. The Tribunal found the payments were not earnings "from" employment but were benefits made "by reason of" employment because employment was an operative cause/condition of the payments, and therefore chargeable to income tax and Class 1 NICs; the appeal was dismissed.

Scott Macarthur v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 997 (TC) 24 November 2023 This appeal concerned a Schedule 41 penalty of £217.08 for failure to notify liability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2017/18. The tribunal found the appellant had received HMRC's 14 Nov 2019 nudge and 13 Dec 2019 final reminder, did not act until after a 2022 discovery assessment, and therefore had no continuing reasonable excuse or special circumstances. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

Legend of Golden Temple Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 988 (TC) 23 November 2023 This Tribunal dismissed ten joined appeals by companies (all with the same sole director) against HMRC’s refusal to issue SEIS compliance certificates, finding that the companies had been artificially fragmented, failed the risk-to-capital and trading/creation-of-intangible-assets conditions, and that some later share issues were caught by disqualifying arrangements; one company’s April 2019 share issue also failed because an investor did not fully pay. The result is dismissal of all appeals, with permission to apply for appeal within 56 days.

Acorn Venture Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 995 (TC) 22 November 2023 Acorn Venture Ltd bought 26 prefabricated timber pods in 2015 and claimed Annual Investment Allowance (AIA). The tribunal found 20 "Basic Pods" were not buildings or fixed structures and so qualified as plant; 6 "Teacher Pods" were fixed and, on balance, buildings and excluded from AIA for the relevant period. Although the Teacher Pods could be moved in principle, there was no evidence of an intention to move them during the 2015 accounting period so Item 21 did not apply.

Janch Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 990 (TC) 22 November 2023 Janch Limited appealed late against HMRC decisions and a C18 Post Clearance Demand; the Tribunal applied the three-stage test for permission to appeal out of time. The Tribunal found a 30-day delay, no good reason for it, and that the appellant’s persistent failure to provide particulars and requested evidence (and its advisers’ failings) were attributable to the appellant. Balancing the circumstances, the Tribunal refused permission to appeal out of time.

Charles Collier & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 993 (TC) 21 November 2023 This First-tier Tribunal appeal concerned HMRC assessments, amendments and penalties for Mr Collier and his partnership for years 2007–2011, and whether the tax loss was caused deliberately (20-year time limit) or only by carelessness/negligence (6-year limit). The Tribunal found HMRC had not proved deliberate behaviour or "blind-eye" knowledge by Mr Collier; the omissions arose from negligent/careless conduct. As a result, the later assessments and amendments were out of time under the six-year limit and were invalid, and the related penalties fell away.

Steven Bowen v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 992 (TC) 21 November 2023 This appeal concerned whether The Granary, a separate but adjacent leasehold, formed part of the grounds of Old Valley Farmhouse for SDLT s116(1) so that the purchase was wholly residential. Applying a multi‑factorial factual assessment (historic and current use, legal constraints, geography and ownership), the Tribunal found The Granary was part of the farmhouse grounds at the effective date. HMRC’s closure notice increasing SDLT was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Vision Dispensing Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 991 (TC) 21 November 2023 Vision Dispensing Ltd (VDL) supplied customer support and warehouse fulfilment for contact lenses sold via a sister company’s website. The First-tier Tribunal held that VDL’s services, taken as a whole, did not amount to VAT-exempt "medical care" and were not "wholly performed or directly supervised" by appropriately registered persons under Note (2) to Group 7, so the supplies were standard-rated and the appeal was dismissed.

Christopher Legg v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 994 (TC) 20 November 2023 This appeal concerned Schedule 41 penalties for failure to notify liability to the High-Income Child Benefit Charge for 2018‑19 and 2019‑20. The Tribunal found the appellant was in statutory default, rejected his claimed reasonable excuses (including ignorance and non-receipt of post), found no special circumstances, and upheld HMRC's penalty calculations. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties of £519.60 were confirmed.

Nicholas Bell & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 989 (TC) 20 November 2023 This case concerned the market value on gifting dates of AIM‑quoted Cityblock (29 July 2003) and Strategic Retail (19 December 2003) shares donated to charity, and related procedural complaints that HMRC’s very delayed enquiries rendered a fair hearing impossible. The Tribunal accepted HMRC’s expert (Mr Strickland) overall, treated illiquid post‑float trades with caution but gave weight to certain prospectus‑reported transactions, and found values of 12p (Cityblock) and 14.25p (Strategic Retail). Applications to debar HMRC or summarily allow the appeals for abuse of process were dismissed; specified increases to closure‑notice assessments were directed for some appellants.

Simple Energy Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 976 (TC) 17 November 2023 This tax appeal concerned whether Bulb Energy’s "refer a friend" credits were non-monetary consideration for VAT or merely discounts reducing the taxable value of energy supplies. The First-tier Tribunal held that successful referrals constituted services supplied to Bulb (non-monetary consideration) with a direct contractual link and reciprocal bargain such that the value of the service equalled the RAF credit. The appellant’s challenge was dismissed.

Conditionaire Energy Savers Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 977 (TC) 16 November 2023 This case concerns appeals by Conditionaire Energy Savers Ltd and its sole director, Peter E. Williams, against an HMRC s.73 "best judgment" VAT assessment, a Schedule 24 penalty for deliberate and concealed inaccuracies in VAT returns, and a Personal Liability Notice (PLN). The First-tier Tribunal, on the papers, upheld the s.73 assessment for failure to discharge the burden of proof, found the returns intentionally inaccurate and concealed (so the Schedule 24 penalty stood), and held the deliberate inaccuracy attributable to Mr Williams, sustaining the PLN. Appeals were dismissed and rights to apply for permission to appeal preserved.

Douglas Lakeland v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 978 (TC) 16 November 2023 This remade FTT decision reconsidered discovery assessments and a failure-to-notify penalty under the HICBC after a procedural irregularity. The tribunal accepted the appellant’s and his spouse’s evidence that they did not receive prior HMRC mail, found ignorance of the HICBC to be a reasonable excuse up to and including 10 July 2021, limited HMRC to ordinary time limits and therefore validated only the 2019/20 assessment (tax £1,788), and allowed appeals against earlier years and the penalty.

Drinks and Food UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 979 (TC) 16 November 2023 This appeal concerned Drinks and Food UK Ltd's claim for excise drawback after an assessment and whether HMRC had validly refused most of the claim. The Tribunal found HMRC had waived the three‑year time limit by a 27 December 2019 email and allowed £9,695.27 of the claim (goods exported before 31 December 2020 not requiring de‑stamping), but upheld refusal of the remainder because the claimant failed to ensure de‑stamping complied with the Duty Stamp Regulations (no URNos recorded) and failed to provide required export evidence for the April 2021 shipments. The Tribunal also held it has jurisdiction to supervise whether HMRC reasonably exercised its discretion to allow departures from conditions.

Gary Ives v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 968 (TC) 13 November 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC closure notices and discovery assessments treating profits from three property disposals as income, plus alleged undeclared rental income and a 2010/11 receipt. The Tribunal held the disposals were not trading but capital gains qualifying for Private Residence Relief, that HMRC had not proved deliberate omission of earlier rental income so the time-barred discovery assessments/penalties failed, and that a modest Fullbrooks 2010/11 receipt is taxable. The Tribunal also held a closure notice may be read in context to permit alternative CGT/PPR treatment where linked correspondence shows the officer considered that alternative.

Learna Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 972 (TC) 9 November 2023 Learna Limited appealed HMRC's decision that it was not an eligible body for Group 6, Sch 9 VATA 1994. After the appeal was lodged, HMRC notified it had withdrawn/cancelled the decision and applied to strike out the appeal for want of jurisdiction. The First-tier Tribunal refused to strike out, holding that HMRC's post-appeal withdrawal does not automatically oust the Tribunal's jurisdiction and directed the parties either to make a joint consent order under Rule 34 or proceed to a hearing or determination on the papers.

James Fera v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 961 (TC) 8 November 2023 HMRC issued discovery assessments in March 2021 charging High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2016–17 to 2019–20. The Tribunal held the assessments were invalid under s.29(1)(a) TMA because they purported to relate to "income" and child benefit is not income, and concluded the taxpayer had raised the legal issue of invalidity on or before 30 June 2021 so the Finance Act 2022 retrospective protection did not apply. The Tribunal allowed the appeals.

Parker Hannifin (GB) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 971 (TC) 8 November 2023 This appeal concerned a Schedule 36 information notice requiring email searches by specified terms about a 2014 Eurobond and its 2017 transfer. The Tribunal held the notice was not invalid merely because it used search terms, but the terms as drafted were overbroad and many emails were not "reasonably required." The Tribunal accepted PwC's professional filtering and varied the notice to require only emails that, as identified by PwC's process, related to the Eurobond's purpose; no further production was ordered because those documents had already been provided.

Sylvia Hook (trading as Sylmis Puppies also known as Sylml Puppies) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 960 (TC) 8 November 2023 The appellants applied for costs after a November 2022 hearing was adjourned because HMRC omitted documents from revised bundles. The Tribunal found the omissions were a genuine accidental error and did not amount to unreasonable conduct, and also refused the costs application because the appellants failed to provide the detailed costs schedule required by Rule 10(3)(b). The application was therefore refused; only a minor train fare claim would have been possibly recoverable had HMRC been unreasonable.

Access Contracting Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 973 (TC) 6 November 2023 This appeal concerned whether Access Contracting Services (ACS) took reasonable care under Condition A of Regulation 9(3) of the CIS Regulations and whether any special circumstances justified reducing a Schedule 24 penalty, after ACS paid three payroll companies gross when they should have been paid net. The Tribunal found ACS did not take reasonable care, refused Regulation 9(5) relief, and rejected a special reduction of the penalty, but directed that if penalties are not suspended the maximum telling/helping/giving mitigation should apply.

Dan Andrei Hagi-Nicovici v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 967 (TC) 6 November 2023 This case concerns a lorry seizure at Dover on 10 May 2018 where the appellant was driving 26,064 litres of beer with no excise duty paid; HMRC assessed unpaid duty of £32,251 and a schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty of £11,287.85. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellant liable for the excise duty under Regulation 13 as the person in physical possession at the excise duty point and upheld the deliberate wrongdoing penalty, dismissing the appeal.

M & S Property Services (NW) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 969 (TC) 6 November 2023 This case concerns an appeal against two post‑clearance C18 demand notices totalling £18,924.98 issued by HMRC for six imports alleged to be misclassified and undervalued. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the goods were pedal‑assist electric bicycles falling under commodity code 8711609010 and that valuation adjustments (omitted packing/shipping and currency errors) were correctly raised. The demand notices were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Sunday Salokun v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 962 (TC) 6 November 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC capital gains tax assessments for 2014/15 and 2015/16 and related penalty assessments for 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 arising from the appellant’s failure to declare gains on four property disposals. The First-tier Tribunal found the tax assessments were valid and in time, and that the inaccuracies were deliberate (but not concealed), so dismissed the appeals against the assessments and penalties. The Tribunal ordered a reduction of the 2015/16 and 2016/17 penalties in line with HMRC’s revised computations but upheld the 2014/15 penalty.

Watch Trading Co v The Director of Border Revenue [2023] UKFTT 963 (TC) 6 November 2023 This appeal concerned five Rolex watches seized at Stansted shipped from Miami described as "precision instrument parts" and declared at a low value; the appellant said the parcel was sent to the named consignee by mistake. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's witness evidence and lack of supporting documentation, found the parcel deliberately mislabelled and undervalued to disguise its contents, and upheld the Border Force decision to refuse restoration.

Andrew James Wilson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 944 (TC) 3 November 2023 This case concerns an appellant who failed to comply with a Schedule 36 information notice served by HMRC, was issued a £300 penalty (and daily penalties), and sought a stay of the penalties appeal pending BVI arbitral proceedings and collateral challenges to the validity of a purported remuneration trust (AILRT). The First-tier Tribunal refused the stay and held that the penalties appeal is limited to (1) whether the appellant failed to comply with the notice, (2) whether the penalty was validly issued, and (3) whether there was a reasonable excuse; collateral challenges to the trust or ongoing foreign arbitration were not relevant to those limited issues. The appeal must proceed on those issues.

Gap Group Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 970 (TC) 2 November 2023 This case concerned whether GAP Group's provision of plant with red diesel and subsequent invoicing for fuel shortfalls were separate VAT supplies or a single composite, and if single whether the fuel element could attract a reduced rate. The First-tier Tribunal found the plant hire and fuel were multiple, independent supplies because customers had a genuine choice to return equipment with or without fuel and fuel was separately identified and invoiced on termination. The Tribunal also rejected GAP’s fallback that, if a single supply, the fuel element would qualify for a reduced rate.

EF Brosch & Ors v The Commissioner for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 945 (TC) 31 October 2023 This case concerned whether HMRC could issue discovery assessments for SDLT where purchasers had used Cornerstone-promoted "Jeepster" and "Hummer" schemes, and whether the SDLT1 returns plus a standard disclosure note would have made a hypothetical HMRC officer aware of a tax insufficiency before the enquiry window closed. The First-tier Tribunal held the returns and disclosure note were inadequate to satisfy paragraph 30(3) Schedule 10 FA 2003, so HMRC's discovery assessments stood; an application to compel disclosure of privileged 2007 legal advice was dismissed.

French Sole (Marylebone) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 913 (TC) 30 October 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC's refusal to restore 517 pairs of imported shoes seized for misdeclaration and undervaluation. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC's second‑review decision as one a reasonable decision‑maker could reach, concluding the substantial undervaluation and misclassification justified refusal to restore and the goods were destroyed. The appeal was dismissed.

Mark Alan Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 912 (TC) 30 October 2023 This appeal concerned discovery assessments issued by HMRC for 2012/13 alleging SIFA had distributed goodwill to the appellants by crediting goodwill in Simpsons Wealth Management LLP capital accounts. The tribunal found on the facts that the relevant client relationships and reputation belonged to the individual advisers, not to SIFA, and that SIFA’s accounts (prepared in accordance with GAAP) did not show omitted goodwill; accordingly there was no company distribution and the appeals succeeded.

Aleksander Vinni v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 911 (TC) 27 October 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC VAT assessments on two Honey Cake shops for 09/14–03/18 and 03/19, and related penalties. The FTT refused to set aside the 09/14–03/18 assessment but found HMRC made arithmetic and methodological errors (including omitting corporate sales) and directed a recomputation reducing the standard‑rated proportion. The FTT set aside the 03/19 assessment and its penalty because HMRC’s refusal of an error correction was arbitrary. The appellant’s appeal against the already‑cancelled 09/14–03/18 penalty was struck out as otiose.

Newport City Council v Welsh Revenue Authority & Anor [2023] UKFTT 914 (TC) 27 October 2023 Newport City Council appealed WRA decisions on Landfill Disposal Tax and HMRC decisions on Landfill Tax and applied for a stay pending a related Cardiff case; the Tribunal refused the stay as the Cardiff decision was unlikely to provide material assistance given factual differences and procedural timing. The Tribunal ordered the unopposed joinder of Newport’s WRA and HMRC appeals, gave case management directions and required HMRC to serve a statement of case within 60 days.

Apsley Way Property Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 907 (TC) 24 October 2023 This appeal concerned AWPH Ltd's challenges to two HMRC information notices (11 Oct 2021 and 6 Dec 2021) and its application for a closure notice in relation to open enquiries for years to 5 April 2018 and 2019. The tribunal found some items had already been provided (items 1b and 1c of the October notice, item 6 of the December notice) but otherwise upheld most of HMRC's requests as reasonably required to check the company's tax position, and refused the closure notice application. The net outcome was that most of the information notices were sustained and the request to close the enquiries was rejected.

Andrzej Osmolski v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 905 (TC) 23 October 2023 This appeal concerned liability for excise duty and a Schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty after Border Force seized three pallets of hand-rolling tobacco from Mr Osmolski’s van at Coquelles Freight. The Tribunal found he was holding/transporting the tobacco at the excise duty point and thus strictly liable for the duty, and that his conduct was deliberate and concealed (alternatively exhibiting "blind-eye" knowledge), so the penalty was upheld with HMRC’s mitigation left intact. The appeal was dismissed.

Derby Quad Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 904 (TC) 23 October 2023 Derby Quad Ltd appealed HMRC assessments charging VAT on admissions to broadcasts of live theatre events shown at its venue, arguing those admissions were exempt as "rights of admission to a theatrical, musical or choreographic performance" under Item 2, Group 13, Schedule 9. The Tribunal rejected DQ's exemption argument, finding broadcasted performances lack the essential co‑presence and performer–audience interaction of theatrical performances, and upheld HMRC's assessments as valid and issued within the statutory time limits. The appeals were dismissed; parties may seek permission to appeal.

Michael Barrett v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 902 (TC) 23 October 2023 Mr Barrett appealed a Schedule 41 penalty of £182.40 for failure to notify liability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge for 2018/19. The Tribunal found HMRC had validly issued the penalty but, on the balance of probabilities, accepted Mr Barrett did not receive two HMRC "Nudge Letters" sent to an address he no longer occupied and that, objectively assessed in his circumstances, this amounted to a reasonable excuse. The penalty was cancelled and the appeal allowed.

MyPay Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 890 (TC) 23 October 2023 This Tribunal refused MyPay's late application to amend its grounds of appeal to add an alternative case that no contracts of employment existed, finding the proposed Additional Ground had no real prospect of success. The Tribunal held the written Contract and MyPay's consistent conduct could be read as either an overarching employment contract or separate assignment contracts, and MyPay failed to show how payments would be characterised if it were not the employer. The Tribunal allowed limited other amendments (grounds 3 and 4) and directed HMRC to serve an amended statement of case and permitted HMRC to remove reliance on Autoclenz.

Navin Joshi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 903 (TC) 23 October 2023 This appeal concerned the date from which Mr Joshi's State Pension entitlement commenced after he made late voluntary Class 2 contributions. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to hear an appeal against HMRC's discretionary decision under reg 6(1) of the 2001 Regulations, found HMRC correctly treated a voluntary contribution as paid on the actual payment date absent discretion, and upheld HMRC's valid exercise of discretion to backdate the deemed payment/commencement date to 15 May 2017 rather than to the pensionable date of 27 January 2017. The appeal was dismissed subject to amending the Formal Notice to show 15 May 2017 as the deemed date.

Samuel Halpern v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 959 (TC) 23 October 2023 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Mr Halpern's First-tier Tribunal appeal against HMRC's refusal to amend a land transaction return and refund the 3% higher rate SDLT. The Tribunal found it lacked jurisdiction under paragraph 35, Schedule 10 of the Finance Act 2003 to hear appeals against refusals to amend land transaction returns and struck the appeal out under Rule 8(2) of the Tribunal Rules. The decision notes alternative remedies (judicial review or the Revenue Adjudicator) but records those may be time-barred.

Vistry Homes Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 906 (TC) 23 October 2023 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out parts of Vistry and Linden's VAT appeals as barred by estoppel or abuse of process arising from a 2018 HMRC ruling and a withdrawn Linden appeal. The tribunal held the deemed determination from the withdrawn Linden appeal was limited to supplies under the Merlin agreement and did not bind the distinct contracts in the 2022 appeals. HMRC's strike‑out application was dismissed and the two appeals were ordered to be joined.

Jonathan Ralph v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 901 (TC) 20 October 2023 This appeal concerned whether Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) applied to the purchase of a house with a detached annexe by determining if the annexe was a "dwelling" at completion on 4 December 2020. The tribunal found the annexe was not "used or suitable for use as a single dwelling" at the effective date because it lacked minimum kitchen/plumbing and power infrastructure, and it was not "in the process of being...adapted" because physical works had not commenced by completion. The appeal was dismissed and MDR was refused.

Wayne Bottomer v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 893 (TC) 20 October 2023 This case concerned whether £31,906.50 paid to an introducer/participant (SB and his wife) as a 50% share of profit on a renovated-and-sold property could be deducted from the appellants' chargeable gain under s.38 TCGA. The First-tier Tribunal found the payments were not expenditure "on" the asset reflected in its state or nature at disposal and were not fees/commission/remuneration for the professional services of a listed agent or similar under s.38(2). The claimed deduction was disallowed; procedural matters on final figures were reserved.

Biznomy Solutions UK Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 892 (TC) 17 October 2023 This appeal concerned a 5% VAT default surcharge charged to Biznomy Solutions UK Ltd for the period 10/22 after returns were filed but payments were late within an existing surcharge period. The tribunal found the surcharge was correctly charged, rejected the appellant's claim of a reasonable excuse, and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also held it had no power to substitute the points-based penalty regime that came into force from 1 January 2023.

Pirmal Healthcare UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 891 (TC) 17 October 2023 Pirmal Healthcare imported active pharmaceutical ingredients owned by overseas customers, paid import VAT and sought to recover it as input tax; HMRC denied recovery and assessed/recovered sums. The First-tier Tribunal held that import VAT is recoverable only where the imported goods form a cost component of taxable supplies made by the claimant, so Piramal’s main claim failed because the goods remained the customers’ property and were not a cost component of Piramal’s taxable supplies. However, the Tribunal found an equal‑treatment breach in relation to transitional relief and ordered that import VAT paid on or before 5 November 2018 be credited. The appeal against HMRC’s initial decision and withholding was dismissed, and the later assessment was allowed in part.

Newcastle United Football Company Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 223 (TC) 16 October 2023 This is an HMRC disclosure application in Newcastle United's appeal against VAT assessments (~£2.03m) relating to input VAT on agents' fees where HMRC seeks listing and copying of c.8,000 documents seized under earlier criminal warrants. The First-tier Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to order the specific disclosure despite ongoing CJPA proceedings, found on the balance of probabilities the material sought was likely relevant and ordered disclosure (subject to privilege), but refused HMRC's separate case-management directions request for now.

L-L-O Contracting Ltd Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 859 (TC) 13 October 2023 The appeals concerned whether taxpayers who paid SDLT but did not claim Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) in their land transaction returns could recover an alleged overpayment by way of a Schedule 10 para 34 claim. The Tribunal held para 34 can be used where the claimant believes tax was overpaid and that an overpayment can arise even if MDR was not claimed in the return, but found the claims barred by Case A of Schedule 10 para 34A because the overpayments were attributable to a "mistake" consisting of the failure to make the required claim. The appellants’ appeals were struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success; permission to appeal may be sought within 56 days.

White Breeze Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 862 (TC) 13 October 2023 White Breeze Ltd appealed penalties for late corporation tax returns for years to 31 July 2013, 2014 and 2015. The Tribunal found the penalties were lawfully imposed (with one 2014 penalty reduced because it had been charged at the wrong higher rate) and dismissed the appeals, concluding that White Breeze did not establish an objectively reasonable excuse for prolonged non-submission and in any event did not remedy any excuse without unreasonable delay. Final penalty amounts were £200 (2013), £200 (2014) and £1,000 (2015).

Craig Kay v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 861 (TC) 12 October 2023 This appeal concerned the market value on 2 April 2004 of 190,000 AIM-traded Access Intelligence plc shares gifted to charity, where the taxpayer had claimed relief based on 42.5p per share and HMRC assessed c.9.44p per share. The Tribunal accepted HMRC expert Clare Rooney’s valuation evidence, found the market value to be 9.42p per share, and dismissed the appeal, adjusting the claimed relief accordingly.

Greenwich Contracts Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 874 (TC) 12 October 2023 This appeal concerned whether HMRC lawfully issued a DOTAS s310D notice and allocated a scheme reference number (SRN) in respect of arrangements involving Greenwich, Umbrella Contracts (UK) Ltd and Integra that routed part of contractors’ pay outside PAYE. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC had become aware of a qualifying transaction after the relevant commencement date, reasonably suspected the arrangements were notifiable and that Greenwich was a promoter, and dismissed Greenwich’s appeal, affirming the SRN allocation.

Hart St Maltings Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 860 (TC) 12 October 2023 Hart St Maltings Ltd sold one of two redeveloped houses (House 4) but in its accounts offset costs of both units against that sale. The tribunal held the company, as a trading micro-entity preparing FRS 105/102 accounts, was required to use accruals accounting so only costs attributable to the sold unit could be matched to its proceeds. HMRC's strike-out application succeeded because the appellant's contrary case had no realistic prospect of success, and the appeal was struck out.

Fatima Jewellers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 889 (TC) 11 October 2023 Fatima Jewellers appealed HMRC’s C18 demand for Customs Duty and import VAT on 18 imports of gold jewellery, arguing officials had accepted a practice of charging duty only on processing costs. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to grant domestic legitimate-expectation relief for Customs Duty, found no EU-law legitimate expectation because any assurances conflicted with statutory UCC requirements (notably OPR authorisation), refused remission of Customs Duty, but allowed relief under regulation 126 VATR so import VAT is limited to processing, transport and any Customs duty. The Customs Duty demand (£151,427.95) remains payable; the parties must agree the reduced VAT amount or return to the Tribunal.

Abigail Wilmore v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 858 (TC) 6 October 2023 This appeal concerned whether Ms Wilmore transferred her beneficial interest in the jointly purchased property Thornfield before 5 April 2016, so that TCGA s58 would apply. The First-tier Tribunal found that a constructive trust arose from the parties' December 2015 agreement (Ms Wilmore taking Ravenshurst, Mr Cohen Thornfield), meaning the beneficial interest passed in the 2015–16 tax year. The transfer was therefore treated on a no gain/no loss basis under s58 and HMRC’s discovery assessment was unsustainable.

Graham Chisnall & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 857 (TC) 5 October 2023 This case concerned three appeals about the market value of AIM‑listed Frenkel Topping and Vista shares gifted to charity in 2004–05 and an application to debar HMRC for delay. The Tribunal dismissed the debarment application, admitted but gave very limited weight to HMRC's internal expert evidence, and accepted AIM trading prices (as extrapolated by the appellants) as the market values on the relevant gift dates, making specific valuation findings for each appeal.

KRS Finance Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 855 (TC) 5 October 2023 KRS Finance Ltd (representative of a VAT group) appealed HMRC decisions on the attribution of marketing expenditure and two proposed partial exemption special methods (PESMs), plus related error correction notices. The tribunal found the contested advertising objectively and exclusively promoted the equity release (ER) "hero" product and therefore had a direct and immediate link to ER supplies, dismissed the Marketing Expenditure Appeal, and rejected both PESM1 (Transaction Count) and PESM2 (Income Adjusted) as not fair and reasonable or more accurate than the standard method; all appeals were dismissed.

Kirin Kalia v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 875 (TC) 4 October 2023 This appeal concerned whether a single June 2020 payment of 15 months' arrears of contractual sick pay should be treated for Class 1 NICs as one lump sum paid in June 2020 or as 15 mistimed monthly instalments allocated to their normal monthly periods under Regulation 7 of the Social Security (Contributions) Regulations 2002. The Tribunal held (excluding interest) the June 2020 payment comprised 15 simultaneous monthly sick-pay instalments and thus fell within Regulation 7 as mistimed payments, but Regulation 7(3) prevents treating such payments as paid in earlier years. HMRC’s allocation of NICs between 2019/20 and 2020/21 was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed; interest was characterised as compensation.

Richard Monks v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 853 (TC) 4 October 2023 This appeal challenged the validity of an HMRC notice of enquiry dated 27 January 2022 and a Schedule 36 information notice dated 3 March 2022. The Tribunal held the enquiry notice was not delivered timeously and so was invalid, but it upheld the Schedule 36 information notice as lawfully issued, proportionate, and limited to the 6 April 2019–5 April 2020 period. The effect is that there is no valid enquiry, but the information notice stands and is final.

RK Hosking v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 943 (TC) 3 October 2023 This case concerns an application to stay a First-tier Tribunal appeal against a £300 Schedule 36 penalty for failure to comply with an information notice concerning payments via Ortho Solutions Limited Remuneration Trust (OSLRT) and related loan arrangements. The Tribunal refused the stay, holding that the validity of OSLRT and related foreign/arbitral proceedings were irrelevant to the limited issues in the penalty appeal (compliance, validity of the penalty procedure, and reasonable excuse). The penalty appeal was ordered to proceed on those statutory issues.

Gareth Evans v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 869 (TC) 2 October 2023 This appeal concerned a Schedule 36 information notice served on Mr Evans about his employment with Total Recruitment Services Ltd and suspected PAYE avoidance. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC were genuinely carrying out a good‑faith check of Mr Evans' individual tax position and that, with two narrow variations to the notice, the information sought was reasonably required. The varied notice was confirmed and Mr Evans was ordered to comply within 28 days.

JFS London Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 852 (TC) 2 October 2023 JFS London Ltd appealed default VAT surcharges totalling £1,790.45 for periods 10/20 and 01/21, arguing pandemic-related access restrictions, furlough and reliance on others caused missed filings/payments. The Tribunal found on the facts that JFS did not have a reasonable excuse, confirmed the surcharges and dismissed the appeal.

Claire Marie Walker v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 865 (TC) 29 September 2023 This appeal concerned three late filing penalties issued to Ms Walker for the year to 5 April 2021 and whether HMRC validly served the filing notice and penalty notices by electronic means. The Tribunal found HMRC failed to prove service because their electronic evidence was incomprehensible and lacked regulation 6 certificates or adequate witness/expert support, and accordingly allowed the appeal and cancelled the penalties. The Tribunal also held, alternatively, that Ms Walker had not established a reasonable excuse based on reliance on her husband.

Joanne Robson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 868 (TC) 29 September 2023 This appeal challenged HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2017/18 and 2019/20. The Tribunal found HMRC’s letter of 9 September 2021 constituted a notified temporary pause of the appeal pending the outcome of Wilkes, so the FA 2022 retrospective protection did not apply; the assessments were therefore not “relevant protected assessments” and, applying Wilkes, the discovery assessments were invalid. The appeal was allowed.

JPMorgan Chase Bank, NA v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 856 (TC) 29 September 2023 JPMorgan Chase Bank NA (CBNA) appealed HMRC VAT assessments and a rejected repayment claim relating to intra-group services supplied to JPMorgan Securities plc (SPLC). The Tribunal found the contractual, economic and invoicing arrangements showed a single, indivisible composite supply of "Support Function Services" (including Business Delivery Services) which had to be taken as a whole. Because no predominant or ancillary exempt element was identifiable, the composite supply was not within the claimed financial-services VAT exemptions and was held to be taxable; the appeal was dismissed.

Mark White & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 866 (TC) 29 September 2023 This appeal concerned whether fields surrounding Horton Hall formed part of the dwelling's "grounds" for SDLT purposes on 23 August 2013. The tribunal found the fields did not have a self‑standing or commercial function at the effective date and were functionally an appendage to Horton Hall, so they qualified as residential. The appeal against HMRC was dismissed.

Robert Bird v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 870 (TC) 29 September 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2012/13–2018/19 and associated failure-to-notify penalties. The Tribunal found HMRC had established that Mr Bird's adjusted net income exceeded the HICBC threshold for 2013/14–2018/19 (so liability to HICBC was upheld for those years), varied the 2012/13 and 2018/19 assessments to correct identified numeric errors, and disallowed all failure-to-notify penalties.

Caleb Brandon Halstead v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 871 (TC) 27 September 2023 Mr Halstead sought repayment of stamp duty land tax (SDLT) paid on two UK property purchases, arguing visiting forces exemptions. The Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction to hear the complaint about the First Property (no HMRC enquiry or closure notice and no valid return amendment) and found no reasonable prospect of success on the Second Property because the statutory relief relied on (FA 60/74A) did not extend to individual members and the overpayment claim was out of time, so the appeal was struck out.

Eva Mary Butler & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 872 (TC) 27 September 2023 This appeal concerned whether Mrs Butler’s interest in Tufton Warren Farm LLP qualified for Business Property Relief or was excluded because the LLP’s activities consisted “wholly or mainly” of making or holding investments under s105(3) IHTA. The Tribunal found that, for the relevant period after Galloping Gourmet’s engagement, the Clock Barn wedding business was characterised primarily as hire/use of premises with key operational functions outsourced, and therefore the LLP was wholly or mainly holding property as an investment. The appeal was dismissed and BPR was refused.

McGeown Transport Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 854 (TC) 27 September 2023 This appeal arose from an excise duty assessment of £1,640,936 after 6,800,400 cigarettes were found in a McGeown vehicle at Dover and McGeown Transport Ltd appealed on grounds of lack of knowledge. The Tribunal, bound by the CJEU and Court of Appeal decisions in Perfect, held that liability under Article 33(3)/Regulation 13 attaches to the person in physical possession (the holder) at the duty point irrespective of knowledge or legal/beneficial interest, and struck out the original appeal. A late application to amend the pleaded holder to "McGeown Haulage" was refused as having no real prospect of success given contemporaneous evidence that McGeown Transport was the holder.

Mohammed Akrami v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 867 (TC) 27 September 2023 This case concerned applications for permission to admit three late appeals against various HMRC penalties and a Preliminary Loss Notice, with a fourth appeal staying. Applying the Martland three-stage approach, the Tribunal found the delays (70 days to 4+ years) substantial, the appellant’s explanations (ill health and adviser failures) insufficiently supported, and the substantive cases weak such that admitting them would prejudice HMRC. The applications to notify the Second, Third and Fourth Appeals late were refused and the appeals were not admitted.

Sharon Suttle v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 873 (TC) 26 September 2023 This appeal concerned personal liability notices (PLNs) issued to the directors of Earn Extra 139 Ltd after HMRC issued large Regulation 80/Section 8 assessments and an 85% Schedule 24 penalty against the company for PAYE/expenses inaccuracies. The Tribunal found the company's returns did contain inaccuracies that understated tax, but HMRC failed to prove those inaccuracies were deliberate (or deliberate and concealed) and attributable to the directors. Accordingly the paragraph 19 condition for a director‑attributable deliberate inaccuracy was not met and the appeals were allowed.

People Services Solution Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 786 (TC) 22 September 2023 This case concerned whether the First-tier Tribunal should admit three late appeals by People Services Solution Ltd against large VAT assessments and a deregistration decision; the appeals were 15–16 days late. Applying the Martland approach, the Tribunal found the delays short but serious given the sums involved, gave limited weight to the director’s later medical evidence and rejected postal delay and lack of funds as explanations, and ultimately granted permission to admit the late appeals. The Tribunal directed the parties to agree case management steps to conjoin/consolidate the three late appeals with a fourth timely appeal.

Mohammed Butt & Anor v National Crime Agency [2023] UKFTT 785 (TC) 21 September 2023 The NCA issued POCA notices, made discovery assessments under the TMA and imposed penalties on Mr Butt and Mrs Begum for unexplained income and gains alleged to be criminally linked. The Tribunal found the NCA had reasonable grounds to suspect income/gains arose from criminal conduct, upheld the discovery assessments (including as within the extended time limit where omissions were deliberate or failure to notify), and affirmed the penalties; the appeals were dismissed.

Sangeeta Modha v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 783 (TC) 20 September 2023 This appeal concerned whether an eight‑acre field bought with Firs Farm on 12 April 2018 formed part of the garden or grounds of the dwelling for SDLT purposes. The Tribunal found the field was contiguous with the residential curtilage, had no separate or commercial function on the effective date, and nothing legally prevented its domestic use, so it formed part of the dwelling’s grounds. The appellant’s appeal was dismissed and higher‑rate residential SDLT remained payable.

UK Funerals On-line Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 784 (TC) 20 September 2023 This appeal concerned the VAT treatment of UK Funerals On-line Limited's repatriation services for human remains: whether they fell within the Schedule 9 exemption for arrangements in connection with disposal of the dead or were zero-rated as transport/exports under Schedule 8. The Tribunal found the services prima facie related to disposal but, applying the Mesto predominance test from authorities and assessing from the typical consumer's perspective, concluded the predominant element was specialist transport and export arrangements. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and held the supplies are zero-rated rather than exempt.

Anra Deals Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 755 (TC) 13 September 2023 Anra Deals imported goods with incorrect tariff classifications on multiple entries; HMRC seized the goods and refused restoration after review. The Tribunal applied a supervisory (Wednesbury) test and held HMRC’s refusal was not one that could not reasonably have been arrived at, given the number of errors and a prior warning; the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal found reliance on a third‑party website and agents did not excuse the importer’s duty to ensure accurate declarations.

Bull Brand Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 748 (TC) 7 September 2023 Bull Brand Limited sought permission to appeal out of time against HMRC’s rejection of an error correction notice (ECN) dated 10 December 2018 which it says it did not receive. The tribunal found the delay was serious and, although likely caused by lost post, non-receipt and assumptions about a wider industry dispute did not constitute a good reason for the prolonged failure to appeal. Permission to appeal out of time was refused, with the appellant preserved a right to seek permission from the Upper Tribunal.

Hive Umbrella Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 753 (TC) 7 September 2023 Hive Umbrella Ltd applied for permission to bring a 27‑day late appeal against HMRC's allocation of a scheme reference number under FA 2004. The tribunal applied the three‑stage Martland/Denton approach (length of delay; reasons for delay; overall evaluation including prejudice) and, although it found the appellant's reasons for delay unmeritorious, concluded the short delay and the prejudice the appellant would suffer from statutory consequences justified granting permission. The late appeal was allowed.

WF & L Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 754 (TC) 7 September 2023 WF & L Ltd imported 85 vehicles manufactured in Turkey and claimed Turkish preferential duty treatment but produced no A.TR certificates. The Tribunal found the company did not prove the vehicles met the Turkey Decision/Article 3 free‑circulation conditions and that absence of A.TR documentation prevented a valid preference claim, dismissed the appeal and upheld HMRC’s demand applying a 10% duty (plus VAT).

Alpha Republic Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 750 (TC) 5 September 2023 Alpha Republic challenged HMRC's allocation of SRN 67713093 and applied to bar HMRC or to require a re-drafted Statement of Case or disclosure of the evidence underpinning it. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC's 29-page Statement of Case complied with Rule 25, that references to evidence in the pleading were permissible and that immediate disclosure or re-drafting would be disproportionate. Alpha Republic's application was dismissed and the Tribunal gave case management directions and invited HMRC to apply for costs.

Peter Hemingway v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 749 (TC) 5 September 2023 This appeal concerned whether a cash payment made on the cancellation/cash‑out of vested Broadcom share options on a merger was taxable under chapter 5 ITEPA as connected with employment‑related securities or under chapter 3 ITEPA (s401/s403) as payment for loss/variation of employment rights, and whether section 12D TMA (FA19) retrospectively validated an earlier voluntary return so as to invalidate a later closure notice. The Tribunal held the payment was made "in connection with" employment‑related securities (s476/477) and so fell within chapter 5, and it rejected the appellant's section 12D/TMA challenge, dismissing the appeal.

Richard Chattaway v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 752 (TC) 5 September 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2014/15, 2018/19 and 2019/20 and Schedule 41 penalties for failure to notify. The tribunal upheld the HICBC assessments as valid and time‑barred-protected but allowed the appellant's challenge to the penalties, finding he had a reasonable excuse (ignorance that child benefit was included in adjusted net income) until HMRC's 8 March 2021 letter; the tribunal also found the appellant did not receive HMRC's 2019 "nudge" and that a 2013 SA252 did not put him on sufficient notice.

Richard Warner v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 751 (TC) 5 September 2023 Mr Warner bought two adjacent plots in May 2016, submitted SDLT returns treating them as non‑residential, and sought multiple dwelling relief (MDR) in July 2018 which HMRC refused as out of time. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC had not made an appealable decision (no enquiry opened, no closure notice) and that the statutory 12‑month amendment limit could not be extended by the proviso in paragraph 6(3); nor could the MDR claim be recast as an overpayment claim to avoid those time limits. The appeal was struck out for want of jurisdiction.

Heartlands House Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 747 (TC) 1 September 2023 This appeal concerned Heartlands House Ltd’s claim to recover input VAT of £28,221.96 for period 09/19 which HMRC denied, principally because many costs were paid to a now-dissolved subcontractor (Caihma) and HMRC queried whether the purchases were made in connection with taxable supplies. The First-tier Tribunal found the company produced contracts, invoices, bank payments and credible witness evidence showing it intended to make and did make taxable supplies, rejected HMRC’s criticisms, and allowed the appeal.

John Sharp v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 746 (TC) 1 September 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2014/15–2017/18 and Schedule 41 penalties for failure to notify under s7 TMA. The Tribunal found Mr Sharp’s adjusted net income exceeded £50,000 in each year, upheld the discovery assessments as compliant with time limits (including as affected by FA 2022), and dismissed his reasonable-excuse defence to the notification penalties, reducing the penalty to the maximum permitted reduction (20%).

Konstruct Recruitment Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 745 (TC) 1 September 2023 Konstruct Recruitment Ltd claimed input VAT on labour supplied via a chain later found to involve fraudulent VAT losses; HMRC denied recovery of about £264k, imposed a 30% s69 penalty on the company and issued a s69D personal liability notice (PLN) to the director RS. The Tribunal accepted HMRC’s tracing and that the transactions formed part of an overall fraud, found RS an unconvincing witness, and concluded that Konstruct (through RS) should have known the purchases were connected to VAT fraud. The appeals against denial of input tax, the s69 penalty and the PLN were dismissed.

Contractors Support Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 744 (TC) 31 August 2023 This case concerns whether a 10 June 2022 email from the appellant constituted an in-time appeal against an HMRC Schedule 36 information notice (issued 12 May 2022) and whether the material sought by that notice was appealable. The Tribunal found the 10 June email did qualify as a valid in‑time appeal but concluded the notice sought statutory records (including bank statements and client analyses) against which no appeal lies. The Tribunal struck out the proceedings relating to the information notice for want of jurisdiction and refused permission for a late appeal against the £300 penalty.

Henderson Acquisitions Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 739 (TC) 31 August 2023 Henderson Acquisitions Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to refund higher-rate SDLT paid on a 2016 purchase, arguing the property was not suitable for use as a dwelling due to need for extensive renovation. The Tribunal found the property had facilities for washing, cooking and sleeping and was structurally sound at completion, so it was suitable for use as a dwelling and the appeal was dismissed. The required repairs (joist replacement, rewiring, heating, plastering, new kitchens/bathrooms) did not amount to demolition or such fundamental defect as to render the building non‑residential. No refund of £12,350 was allowed.

Echo Construction Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 740 (TC) 29 August 2023 Echo Construction Ltd appealed a 5% VAT default surcharge (reduced to £480.71) for late payment of the 04/22 VAT liability. The Tribunal found HMRC proved the default and that notices were properly served to the address on file, and rejected the company's grounds of reasonable excuse (non-receipt of notices, awaiting funds, reliance on deferral). The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge upheld.

Ashley Charles Trees v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 729 (TC) 25 August 2023 This interlocutory decision (refusing wider disclosure) concerns Mr Trees, sole director of CCA, who faced HMRC denial of input tax, a Director's Liability Notice and a civil evasion penalty. Mr Adamson applied for broader disclosure of any HMRC documents mentioning Mr Trees or CCA in relation to the fraudsters; the Tribunal held HMRC's existing disclosure compliant with standard disclosure/CPR requirements and refused the application as disproportionate. The Tribunal concluded Mr Trees had been served with all documents adverse to HMRC and would not be disadvantaged by the refusal.

Gurmit Singh v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 738 (TC) 25 August 2023 This appeal concerned whether Mr Gurmit Singh was liable for an excise duty assessment of £32,670 after 26,179 litres of beer were seized and whether a Schedule 41 penalty of £18,866 properly applied. The Tribunal found Mr Singh was "holding" the goods at the duty point because he exercised de facto control (keys, use of forklift, moving pallets) and dismissed his appeal against the duty assessment. The Tribunal allowed his appeal against the penalty because HMRC had not proved the penalty imposed was for handling as pleaded rather than a failure-to-notify penalty.

All Answers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 737 (TC) 23 August 2023 All Answers Ltd operated an online service selling academic work produced by third‑party Writers and retained most of the fee. HMRC assessed VAT; the FTT concluded, applying UT reasoning, that All Answers (not the Writers) supplied the academic work for VAT purposes because the intermediary bore the core obligations to deliver work of appropriate quality and time; the appeal is dismissed. Contract changes in Sept 2020 (copyright clauses and an express statement of a contract between Writer and Customer) did not change the commercial and economic reality.

Espalier Ventures Property (Lansdowne Road) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 725 (TC) 23 August 2023 This appeal concerned whether a £5,350,000 acquisition comprising a flat, three detached garages and a share of a communal garden amounted to a single dwelling for Schedule 4ZA SDLT purposes so as to attract higher company rates. The Tribunal held the garages fell within para 18(3) as land intended to be occupied/enjoyed with the dwelling and the communal garden rights were proprietary easements appurtenant to the flat/share of the freehold. The appeal was dismissed and the higher SDLT charge under modified Table A was upheld.

Prutish Gopaul v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 728 (TC) 23 August 2023 Mr Gopaul appealed personal liability notices (PLNs) issued by HMRC in respect of VAT and corporation tax arising from his company Milano Pizza. The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s VAT best‑judgement assessments and the deliberate penalties relating to understated turnover and profits, but found HMRC had not proved deliberate omission of s.455 loan‑to‑participator liabilities, reducing the corporation tax PLN. Mitigation was allowed at 56% of the PLR and the total personal liability was reduced accordingly.

GB-Gadgets Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 726 (TC) 21 August 2023 GB-Gadgets Ltd appealed HMRC’s assessment of unpaid VAT for 1 Sept 2013–31 Mar 2018 and a Schedule 41 penalty of £46,726.79 for failure to notify VAT registration; the Tribunal found it more likely than not the company should have been registered from 1 Sept 2013 and dismissed the appeal. A late proposed new ground that turnover did not exceed the threshold until April 2018 was refused as having no reasonable prospect of success. The Tribunal held HMRC had properly considered special circumstances and applied the Schedule 41 reductions appropriately, so the penalty was confirmed.

Waseem Shahid v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 716 (TC) 18 August 2023 This appeal concerned penalties under Schedule 41 TMA for failure to notify chargeability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge for 2014/15–2017/18. The appellant accepted the tax but argued he had a reasonable excuse because he was unaware of the detailed HICBC requirements until a 2019 "nudge" letter; the tribunal found his evidence credible, accepted the reasonable-excuse defence, and held he remedied the failure without unreasonable delay after contact with HMRC, quashing the penalties.

Ifeoma Nwadei v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 724 (TC) 17 August 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC's refusal to register Ifeoma Nwadei under the Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme on fit-and-proper-person grounds. The Tribunal found Officer Ames' decision was reasonable given inconsistent and unexplained financial information, insufficient evidence of funding and business viability, and unanswered questions about turnover and bank deposits. The appeal was dismissed, though the appellant may reapply if she can address HMRC’s concerns.

Paul Henley v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 720 (TC) 17 August 2023 This appeal concerns Mr Henley’s challenge to a Schedule 1A TMA closure notice refusing carry‑back of trading losses; he accepts most losses were not genuine and limits the point to 2009/10. He sought a stay of the Tribunal proceedings pending parallel High Court litigation about the so‑called "Derry Ground 2" issue. The Tribunal dismissed the stay application, holding the Court of Appeal’s Derry Ground 2 remains binding here and, given Parliament’s allocation of closure‑notice appeals to the Tribunal, it is expedient that the Tribunal determine the matter without waiting for the High Court proceedings.

Daniel Simmonite v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 721 (TC) 16 August 2023 This appeal concerned discovery assessments and Schedule 41 penalties for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2017/18. The Tribunal held that amendments in the Finance Act 2022 restored HMRC's power to make discovery assessments for HICBC and applied retrospectively in this case, so the assessments stand and remain payable. The Tribunal also found the August 2017 telephone call to the Child Benefit Office did not amount to notification under s7 TMA, but concluded the appellant had an objectively reasonable excuse for failing to notify and therefore was not liable to penalties.

United Biscuits (UK) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 864 (TC) 16 August 2023 This appeal concerned whether United Biscuits' "Blissfuls" biscuit (a biscuit cup with a chocolate-hazelnut layer and a smaller biscuit lid) fell within the Excepted Item for goods "partly covered with chocolate" in VATA Sch.8 Group 1. The Tribunal applied ordinary meanings, rejected the appellant's proposed filling/layer legal distinction, and found that the biscuit is partly covered by chocolate for the purposes of the provision. The appeal was dismissed.

Gigabiz Ltd & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 693 (TC) 15 August 2023 The Appellants (Gigabiz Ltd & Ors) applied for costs after a February 2023 hearing in a Complex-allocated appeal against HMRC. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to pay the Appellants' costs on the standard basis but refused indemnity costs and declined to carry out a summary assessment, directing assessment if not agreed. The Tribunal also signalled it would not allow costs for preparation of prolix or defective costs application documents.

Kenan Altunis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 719 (TC) 15 August 2023 This appeal concerned whether Mr Altunis acted fraudulently or negligently in claiming £5,344,836.23 of losses for 2007–08 arising from the Alphabeta scheme and whether certain scheme payments/loan arrangements were fees or genuine. The Tribunal found HMRC did not prove fraud: Altunis believed he would be deemed a trader under the agency arrangement, but he was negligent for failing to obtain independent specialist advice before entering an aggressive loss-creation scheme. The Tribunal also found the £656,250 represented 12.5% of the maximum loss and at least partly a fee, that Alphabeta was marketed as a loss scheme, and that the Bayridge loan was not intended to be repaid. The penalty was reduced to £652,549 (31.5% of the relevant tax difference) after applying the Tribunal’s penalty discretions.

Constantin Rotaru v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 713 (TC) 14 August 2023 This appeal was struck out for want of jurisdiction because the Tribunal found no evidence that Mr Rotaru had given written notice of appeal to the relevant HMRC officer (Officer A) as required. The appellant relied on an alleged 21 June 2022 notice and oral claims of emailed appeals, but no written appeal to Officer A was proved and failed/bounced emails were held not to amount to a written appeal. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal under Rule 8(2)(a).

Derrida Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 715 (TC) 14 August 2023 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 ATED late‑filing penalties following a nil relief declaration for a residential property. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the property was not within the ATED charge at the relevant date so no return was required; alternatively, applying Perrin, the appellant had a reasonable excuse for late filing given reliance on accountants without ATED knowledge and prompt corrective steps. The penalties were cancelled and the appeal allowed.

Little Lever Working Mens Club v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 714 (TC) 14 August 2023 Little Lever appealed after HMRC issued a protective VAT assessment in November 2011 and later correspondence in July 2022. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear an appeal against HMRC’s 5 July 2022 letter because that letter did not contain an appealable decision and struck out that part of the appeal, and it refused permission for an 11‑year‑late appeal against the November 2011 protective assessment.

Gilad Kalchheim v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 709 (TC) 11 August 2023 This appeal by Gilad Kalchheim challenged a Schedule 56 late payment penalty of £135 for unpaid High‑Income Child Benefit Charge for year ending 5 April 2021. HMRC proved the statutory defaults (due date 31 January 2022; payment made 26 April 2022), and the tribunal found the appellant did not establish a reasonable excuse or special circumstances to avoid or reduce the penalty. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

KRF UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 717 (TC) 11 August 2023 KRF appealed HMRC's tariff classification of specialised plain bearings and liners imported for incorporation into JCB machinery. The Tribunal found the liners could not be "plain shaft bearings" because they are fixed and do not permit a component to turn within them, and that the bearings, although plain bearings, were designed for pivot-pin (limited oscillation) use rather than for a rotating shaft or axle. Consequently the goods were not classifiable under heading 8483 and instead fell with the machinery under heading 8431; the Tribunal allowed KRF's appeal against the C18 demands and penalties.

Tran Van Pho Tsang v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 694 (TC) 11 August 2023 This case concerned whether a 1 October 2019 Tribunal strike-out direction validly struck out Mrs Tsang's personal-liability-notice appeal (TC/2018/03113) linked to Prosperity Restaurant Ltd, and whether a later duplicate appeal (TC/2022/12561) should be struck out. The Tribunal held the 2019 direction did not validly strike out Mrs Tsang's appeal because the correspondence and reasons related only to the company and did not name her, so TC/2018/03113 remains live and will be progressed. The later appeal TC/2022/12561 was struck out as a duplicate of the live TC/2018/03113.

Darren Dunckley v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 707 (TC) 10 August 2023 This appeal concerned a discovery assessment for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2018/19 and a Schedule 41 penalty for failure to notify. The tribunal upheld the HICBC discovery assessment but allowed the appeal against the penalty, finding the appellant had a reasonable excuse for not notifying and remedied the failure without unreasonable delay after being notified. The tribunal accepted HMRC had sent post but also accepted the appellant's credible evidence of non‑receipt of earlier "nudge" correspondence.

Gallagher's Windows, Doors & Conservatories Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 706 (TC) 10 August 2023 Gallagher's Windows appealed HMRC determinations under regulation 13(2) of the CIS Regulations totalling £51,279 for 2013–17, and challenged HMRC's refusals to give directions under reg 9(4)/(5). The Tribunal held that a reg 13(2) determination precludes a later reg 9(5) direction in respect of the same amounts, that the First-tier Tribunal lacks judicial review jurisdiction to challenge HMRC's refusals under reg 9(4), and that the determinations stand unless HMRC withdraws or revises them.

Mohammed Naseemdost v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 703 (TC) 9 August 2023 This appeal challenged a personal liability notice issued to Mr Mohammed Naseemdost under Schedule 24 FA 2007, arising from HMRC best-judgment VAT assessments against Aglow Fashions Ltd for underdeclared output tax. The Tribunal accepted HMRC's methodology given deficient company records, found the return inaccuracies were deliberate and concealed, attributed that conduct to Mr Naseemdost as an officer, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the PLN for £271,251.60.

Thomas Kozlowski v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 711 (TC) 8 August 2023 This appeal concerned whether a detached garage sold with a dwelling was residential for SDLT when the buyer let it the same day under a short tenancy at will to a connected company. The Tribunal held the nature of the chargeable interest is assessed at the moment of completion, and on that basis the acquired interest was wholly residential because the garage formed part of the garden/grounds; the tenancy at will was not a genuine commercial lease and s.116(1)(c) did not apply. HMRC’s closure notice demanding additional SDLT was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Waynefleet Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 710 (TC) 8 August 2023 Waynefleet applied under VATA s.84(3B) for permission to prosecute an appeal without paying or depositing disputed VAT of £170,344.78, claiming payment would cause hardship. The tribunal applied established hardship principles (Elbrook), found on the evidence at the hearing that the company had no immediately or readily available resources and that using available funds would itself cause hardship, and allowed the application so the substantive appeal may proceed without deposit. The decision records factual findings about bank balances, accounts and prior payments and gives standard appeal directions.

Louise Duncan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 697 (TC) 7 August 2023 This case concerns an application for permission to bring a nearly four-year-late appeal against a HMRC closure notice amending the appellant’s 2016/17 self-assessment to include omitted employment income. The Tribunal applied the Martland three-stage test, found the delay was serious and that the appellant's reasons did not outweigh it, refused permission to appeal late, and held that even if permission had been granted the substantive appeal would have failed because the omitted income plainly should have been included.

Michael Standing v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 698 (TC) 7 August 2023 This appeal concerns a £1,144 civil evasion penalty imposed after Mr Standing was stopped at Leeds Bradford airport on 14 January 2020 with 10,580 cigarettes, which he admitted belonged to him. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that he subjectively knew the quantity exceeded his personal allowance, that his inconsistent explanations and conduct were objectively dishonest, and that HMRC’s decision to apply a 70% mitigating reduction (giving a £1,144 penalty on £3,818 duty evaded) was appropriate; the appeal was dismissed. The tribunal also proceeded in the appellant’s absence as it was satisfied he had been properly notified and would suffer less prejudice from proceeding.

Ark Angel Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 705 (TC) 4 August 2023 This appeal concerned income tax assessments for alleged overclaimed Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) Support Payments by Ark Angel Ltd in respect of two employees. The tribunal found the written employment contracts dated 27 February 2020 genuine, held the employees were not "fixed‑rate" under paragraph 7.6 and so their reference salary is to be calculated under paragraph 7.2, found they were furloughed only from 17 April 2020 and that both worked for connected persons from 1 December 2020, and concluded the Support Payment levels did not breach paragraph 2.5; the tribunal left precise tax calculations to the parties with liberty to apply.

Hobbs Close Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC & Anor [2023] UKFTT 696 (TC) 4 August 2023 HMRC applied for a third-party costs order under rule 10(1)(c) FTT Rules to make Mr Sameer Dhanji jointly and severally liable with Hobbs Close Ltd for HMRC's costs of three struck-out appeals. The Tribunal found jurisdiction and that the case was exceptional because Mr Dhanji, as sole director/shareholder, had driven a hopeless appeal in bad faith and for personal benefit, so HMRC was in principle entitled to a third-party order. However, having regard to Mr Dhanji's undisputed impecunious financial position under rule 10(5)(b) and the overriding objective, the Tribunal declined to make him personally liable and dismissed the application.

Olivia Wilkinson & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 695 (TC) 4 August 2023 This case concerned whether the July 2016 disposal of P Ltd shares to TF1 Ltd, which included immediate gifts to the Wilkinsons' daughters and deferred loan notes and B shares, formed part of a "scheme or arrangements" whose main (or one of the main) purposes was avoidance of CGT so as to engage s137 and disapply s135. The First-tier Tribunal treated the overall sale to TF1 as the relevant scheme, found that enabling the Wilkinsons' CGT planning was a purpose of the deal but not the main (or one of the main) purposes, and held that s137 did not apply. Accordingly s135 applied to the exchange and the appellants’ appeals succeeded. Parties have 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

The Gala Film Partners, LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 699 (TC) 4 August 2023 The Gala Film Partners, LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC ([2023] UKFTT 699 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Golf Holidays Worldwide Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 701 (TC) 3 August 2023 Golf Holidays Worldwide appealed HMRC’s rejection of an error correction notice reversing treatment of wholesale supplies under the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) for periods 03/17–03/21. The Tribunal held Golf had not made a correctable error under Regulation 35 because it had chosen a lawful accounting option which later proved less advantageous. HMRC’s refusal did not amount to improperly imposing the direct effect of EU law or breach fiscal neutrality. The appeal was dismissed.

Landmaster Investment Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 736 (TC) 3 August 2023 The appellants paid small reservation fees for specific apartments and later acquired 999‑year leases; they argued the reservation agreements were options or rights of pre‑emption so the leases should not be charged at the residential SDLT rate. The Tribunal refused late further submissions, found the reservation agreements were only personal lock‑out/exclusivity obligations (not options or pre‑emptive rights) and dismissed both appeals, confirming HMRC's residential SDLT treatment. The Tribunal added that even if the agreements had been options or rights of pre‑emption, the relevant land would have been the specific apartments (residential) so SDLT at the residential rate would still apply.

Sunil Joseph v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 704 (TC) 3 August 2023 This appeal concerned Schedule 24 penalties imposed by HMRC for inaccuracies in five self‑assessment returns (2013–14 to 2017–18) submitted through an agent, which claimed losses and produced tax repayments of £22,750.40. The Tribunal found Mr Joseph failed to take reasonable care in engaging and checking the agent and the returns, so the inaccuracies were careless and no special circumstances justified further reduction. The penalty was set at the statutory minimum for prompted careless disclosure (15%) and the appeal was dismissed, confirming penalties of £3,412.56.

Magic Carpets (Commercial) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 700 (TC) 1 August 2023 This First-tier Tribunal allowed Magic Carpets' appeals against HMRC Regulation 80 determinations for unpaid PAYE in 2009/10 and 2010/11 and against a Schedule 24 penalty. The tribunal found HMRC had not proven that any carelessness by Magic Carpets (or by its agents, Buckleys) causally brought about the tax loss or the inaccuracies in the P35 returns. Accordingly the determinations and penalty were overturned.

Jason Nicholas James v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 661 (TC) 31 July 2023 This case concerned an application by Jason Nicholas James for permission to file late appeals against Schedule 55 late payment penalties totalling £21,141 for tax years 2016/17–2018/19. The Tribunal applied the Martland three-stage test and found very long, unexplained delays; it rejected reliance on accountants, Covid, and lack of funds as good reasons. Balancing the merits and prejudice, the Tribunal refused permission to give late notices of appeal. The application was dismissed.

Benjamin Redgraves v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 658 (TC) 28 July 2023 Mr Redgraves appealed penalties for failing to notify liability to the Higher Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2019/20. The First-tier Tribunal found the penalty assessments validly raised and correctly calculated, rejected his claim of a reasonable excuse (ignorance of the law and not having received earlier nudge letters), found no special circumstances to reduce the penalty, and dismissed the appeal.

Christopher Diball v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 657 (TC) 28 July 2023 This appeal concerned a 20% failure-to-notify penalty under the higher income child benefit charge (HICBC) for 2018/19, assessed after HMRC correspondence and an awareness letter. The Tribunal found HMRC had sent the December 2019 awareness letter but the appellant did not receive it, rejected ignorance of the law and non-receipt as a reasonable excuse, treated the disclosure as prompted, and upheld the penalty. The appeal was dismissed.

Desser & Co Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 662 (TC) 28 July 2023 Desser & Co Ltd appealed a £4,662.19 VAT default surcharge for period 12/20. The Tribunal found the company was in statutory default because no Time-to-Pay arrangement had been agreed and it had not validly requested or allocated earlier payments to the 12/20 liability before submitting the 12/20 return. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge upheld.

Noel Spencer v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 660 (TC) 28 July 2023 This appeal concerned whether Mr Spencer qualified for two SEISS grants; HMRC assessed recovery of £2,563. The Tribunal found he had ceased self-employment on 5 April 2019, did not trade in 2019–20, and therefore failed the continuity and intention criteria in paragraph 4(2) of the SEISS Schedule. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

Purple Sunset Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 659 (TC) 28 July 2023 Purple Sunset Ltd, a company with a sole director/shareholder Mr McDonald, failed to file RTI returns or pay NICs for payments to him. The First-tier Tribunal held that directors are office-holders treated as "employees" under ITEPA and the PAYE Regulations, so the company was required to make RTI returns, and rejected the company's claimed reasonable excuses. The appeal against RTI penalties was dismissed and the penalties confirmed.

Foundry Supplies UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 656 (TC) 25 July 2023 Foundry appealed a 14 September 2022 HMRC "notification of tax loss" letter and sought particulars of HMRC's allegation of an "overall scheme" to defraud the revenue. The First-tier Tribunal struck out the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding the 14 September letter was not an appealable decision, refused Foundry’s request for further particulars, and ordered HMRC to pay Foundry’s costs for a specified period. Directions were given for managing the substantive Kittel-type proceedings and the parties may seek permission to appeal.

John Beesley & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 650 (TC) 25 July 2023 HMRC issued discovery assessments for the appellants' 2015/16 tax year and imposed penalties; the appellants (via an agent) sought large CGT deductions for mortgage redemption and a personal guarantee payment which HMRC rejected. The First-tier Tribunal held the discovery assessments were valid and timely, disallowed the claimed deductions (mortgage redemption not allowable under s38 TCGA; guarantee payment did not give rise to an allowable loss in 2015/16 and could not be carried back), and upheld penalties for careless behaviour (reduced on review). The appeal was dismissed.

Killik & Co LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 653 (TC) 25 July 2023 This case concerned whether in specie transfers (share transfers) to a SIPP qualified as "pension contributions paid" for relief at source. The Tribunal held the statutory phrase is limited to monetary contributions unless a bona fide cash contribution debt existed and was discharged (or another statutory exception applied), and on the facts no such debt or required offset mechanism had been created; the appellant's appeals were dismissed. The Tribunal also held the PGP protection in TMA s.29(2) did not apply to RAS claims and found no PGP in any event.

UAB Justtrans v Director of Border Force [2023] UKFTT 629 (TC) 25 July 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC’s refusal to restore a tractor unit seized at Dover and whether a late request for review (15 days late) should be accepted. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to hear a substantive appeal absent a completed review, treated the case as an appeal against HMRC’s refusal to accept the late review request, applied the three-stage balancing test for late review requests, accepted the appellant’s illness explanation, and ordered HMRC to carry out a review. The appellant and representative did not attend the hearing; parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Darren Mynett v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 652 (TC) 24 July 2023 This appeal concerned default surcharge notices totalling £1,913.62 issued to a VAT-registered sole trader for periods 06/2021 and 09/2021. The Tribunal found the notices were validly served at the VAT address on HMRC’s records and that the appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for the late returns/payments. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharges upheld.

John Stenhouse v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 635 (TC) 24 July 2023 This case concerned whether the First‑tier Tribunal (FTT) had jurisdiction to hear Mr Stenhouse’s 14 September 2022 appeal about late payment penalties, statements of account and a claim for compensation after HMRC had cancelled or reduced the penalties to nil before the appeal was lodged. The FTT held it had no jurisdiction because there was no appealable decision when the Notice of Appeal was filed, struck the appeal out under FTT Rule 8(2)(a), and refused to transfer the matter to the Upper Tribunal.

Redevco Properties UK 1 Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 655 (TC) 21 July 2023 This appeal concerned whether UK “exit charge” timing rules applied on a 2008 corporate migration breached EU freedom of establishment by denying a deferral option, and what remedy followed. The Tribunal held the Exit Charge Provisions were incompatible with EU law and adopted a conforming construction of s49D TMA to permit payment in five equal annual instalments where Art 49 TFEU would otherwise be infringed; Redevco’s appeal was allowed only as to an agreed unlawful balancing charge and otherwise dismissed. The Tribunal also rejected Redevco’s factual claim that migration depended on counsel’s advice.

Stephen Lee v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 651 (TC) 18 July 2023 This appeal concerned Stephen Lee's liability and penalties under the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2016‑17 to 2019‑20 after HMRC assessed him in May 2022. The Tribunal found Mr Lee and his partner credible, held that Mr Lee had a reasonable excuse for not notifying liability (so penalties were cancelled), applied the ordinary four‑year assessment limit to cancel the 2016‑17 and 2017‑18 assessments, and upheld the 2018‑19 and 2019‑20 assessments, leaving a net liability of £2,702. The Tribunal also found that non‑parentage of one child did not affect HICBC liability.

The Executors of Leslie Vivienne Elborne & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 626 (TC) 14 July 2023 This appeal concerned a 2003 "home loan" scheme where Mrs Elborne purported to sell her house for a promissory Note which she then gifted into a family settlement while continuing to occupy the house. The FTT found the sale contract valid, beneficial ownership passed to the life settlement trustees, and the usual anti-avoidance and valuation provisions did not defeat that position, but held s.103(1) operated on the "debt incurred" limb so the Note liability was abated (effectively to nil), and the appeals were dismissed. The decision is in principle only and preserves rights to seek permission to appeal.

Thomas James Niewiarowski v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 649 (TC) 14 July 2023 This appeal challenged HMRC discovery assessments and penalties for failure to notify liability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2012/13–2019/20. The Tribunal held the discovery assessments under TMA s.29 were valid because Finance Act 2022 amended s.29 and rendered the appellant's Wilkes-based argument inapplicable, and found no reasonable excuse for failure to notify, so Schedule 41 penalties were upheld at the minimum level. The appeal was dismissed.

Denislav Ganchev TMD-Trans Ltd v The Director of Border Revenue [2023] UKFTT 863 (TC) 13 July 2023 This appeal challenged UKBF’s refusal (11 March 2021) to restore a seized Daf tractor used to convey 17 kg of cocaine. The Tribunal found no evidence that the claimant company owned the trailer and concluded the company was either complicit in the smuggling or had failed to take reasonable steps to prevent it, so UKBF’s refusal to restore the vehicle was not unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed.

Massala Exotic Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 621 (TC) 13 July 2023 This case concerned two procedural applications: Massala Exotic Limited sought permission to prosecute its VAT appeal without first paying or depositing the disputed VAT on hardship grounds, and Mr Miah sought to know whether he had a crystallised right of appeal against a deliberate-penalty personal liability notice (PLN) following a requested independent review. The tribunal found the company would suffer hardship if required to pay/deposit the VAT and allowed its application, permitting the appeal to proceed. The tribunal also held that Mr Miah had no crystallised appeal right because HMRC had not given a clear review-conclusion letter, and directed HMRC to issue such a conclusion within 30 days.

Andrew Jonathan and Della Ann Bloom v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 628 (TC) 12 July 2023 The appellants purchased a house with adjoining land including a sewage treatment plant (STP) and claimed part of that land was non‑residential for SDLT purposes to obtain a refund. The First‑tier Tribunal found the 5.6‑acre Disputed Area, despite housing the STP, formed part of the garden or grounds of the dwelling (s.116(1)(b) FA 2003) and that there was no evidence of genuine commercial exploitation. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's closure notice upholding the SDLT assessment was confirmed.

Epem Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 627 (TC) 12 July 2023 Epem Ltd appealed HMRC's compulsory VAT registration from 1 August 2007, arguing many of its clinic services were exempt medical care. The Tribunal found Epem produced insufficient documentary evidence (no contemporaneous medical records or CQC registration) to show that services were primarily for protection, maintenance or restoration of health and that taxable supplies did not exceed the threshold. The appeal was dismissed and the compulsory registration and assessments stand.

James George Gibson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 648 (TC) 12 July 2023 This appeal concerned whether parts of Mr Gibson's purchase (a c.2-acre paddock and a studio/office above a garage) were non-residential or formed part of the garden/grounds of the dwelling for SDLT, and whether Multiple Dwellings Relief (MDR) could be claimed. The Tribunal held the paddock and the studio/office were part of the residential grounds and therefore the acquisition was wholly residential, and further held Mr Gibson had not made an MDR claim within the statutory period so was precluded from relief. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's closure notice was upheld.

M R Currell Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 613 (TC) 12 July 2023 This appeal concerned whether an £800,000 payment by M R Currell Ltd to an employee benefit trust (EBT), which the Trustee immediately lent interest‑free to director Mark Currell (MC), was earnings subject to PAYE and Class 1 NICs under s62 ITEPA. The tribunal held that a genuine repayable loan can, as a matter of law, constitute a taxable benefit, and on the facts the loan conferred a benefit and the substantial reason for the company’s payment was to reward MC for his services. The company’s appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s determinations upheld.

Vitalie Milasenco v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 620 (TC) 12 July 2023 The appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and penalties for tax years 2013–14 to 2016–17, based on findings that the appellant traded online and failed to declare self‑employment income. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that discovery conditions were met, upheld HMRC’s profit estimates and the closure notice, and concluded the appellant’s failure was deliberate (but not concealed), so penalties were properly imposed and reduced by 60% for disclosure. The appeal was dismissed and the assessments and penalties were upheld.

Paul Kerbey v Director of Border Force [2023] UKFTT 647 (TC) 11 July 2023 This is an appeal by Paul Kerbey against Border Force’s refusal to restore his lorry seized after herbal cannabis was found in boxes on 12 June 2020. The Tribunal held it had only a supervisory jurisdiction over the restoration decision, had to treat the seizure as lawful for the purposes of the appeal, and concluded Border Force’s reviewer (Mr Brenton) did not act unreasonably in applying the Restoration Policy and finding the appellant failed to take basic checks; the appeal was dismissed.

Singleton Birch Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 619 (TC) 11 July 2023 This appeal challenged HMRC’s landfill tax assessment treating FCC Knostrop’s blended waste as non‑qualifying under Note (9)(a) to the QMO. The Tribunal found the FCC waste did not "consist entirely" of calcium‑based reaction waste from titanium dioxide production (because APCRs formed a substantial non‑reactive component) and dismissed the appeals, upholding the assessment.

Sylvia Hook (trading as Sylmis Puppies also known as Sylml Puppies) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 618 (TC) 11 July 2023 This case concerns linked appeals by Sylvia Hook (trading as Sylml Puppies and with Pinetrees partnership) against HMRC discovery assessments, penalties for deliberate inaccuracy and failure to notify VAT, and VAT effective-date decisions. The Tribunal found HMRC had made a valid discovery, that the appellants’ cashbooks were unreliable and sales were materially understated, and upheld HMRC’s assessments and penalties in principle but reduced the figures and penalties using insurer (PetPlan/Buddies) data and other evidence to revise the sales and VAT timing. Sylml’s VAT Effective Date was confirmed as 1 November 2011; Pinetrees’ registration timing and penalties were to be recalculated on the Tribunal’s figures. Parties were invited to agree revised calculations or to submit competing figures.

Muller Dairy (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 654 (TC) 7 July 2023 Muller applied under Tribunal Procedure Rule 18(4) to disapply the binding effect of the lead decision in Jones Bros on the ground that its use of a GSOP/CFD scheme for its CEO was factually distinguishable. The Tribunal refused to disapply the lead decision but made Rule 18(5) directions for further case management and a hearing to allow Muller to lead evidence that its facts might produce a different outcome despite the binding legal findings. The Tribunal treated the core issues as whether the arrangements were genuinely contracts for differences or instead produced taxable earnings.

Daniel Kenwright v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 616 (TC) 5 July 2023 This case concerns an application for permission to bring a late appeal against a personal liability notice issued to Mr Kenwright for a deliberate inaccuracy penalty. The appellant filed his notice of appeal about 14 months late and relied on health/COVID impacts and agent difficulties without corroborating evidence; he did not attend the permission hearing. Applying the three-stage Martland approach the tribunal found the delay serious and significant, gave little weight to uncorroborated reasons, identified weaknesses in the underlying case and refused permission.

Ian Charles Strachan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 617 (TC) 5 July 2023 This case concerns Ian Strachan's challenge to HMRC discovery assessments for 2011–12 to 2015–16, principally whether he had acquired domiciles of choice in Connecticut or Massachusetts or retained an English domicile of origin, and whether HMRC's out-of-time discovery assessments for 2011–12 and 2012–13 were valid because any loss of tax was "brought about carelessly." The Tribunal found an English domicile of origin, rejected domiciles of choice in Connecticut and Massachusetts for the relevant years, held Mr Strachan was careless in not refreshing professional advice but that HMRC failed to prove that the carelessness caused the loss of tax for 2011–12 and 2012–13, and adjusted the tax liability accordingly.

JP Trans URK BV v Director Border Revenue [2023] UKFTT 612 (TC) 5 July 2023 This appeal concerned JP Trans URK BV's challenge to Border Force's refusal to restore a seized tractor and trailer in which large quantities of cocaine and amphetamine were concealed. The tribunal accepted the driver’s evidence that he was unaware of the drugs and found the Review Decision unlawful because it relied on an impermissible finding (that the driver knew checks would be futile). The appeal was allowed and the tribunal directed a fresh review by an officer unconnected with the case, with specified directions for further written representations and process.

Sonder Europe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 610 (TC) 5 July 2023 Sonder Europe Ltd appealed HMRC's assessment that its short‑term serviced‑apartment supplies were standard‑rated rather than within the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS). The tribunal found Sonder acted as a tour operator and that the serviced apartments were designated travel services acquired for business and supplied to travellers without material alteration, so TOMS applied. The appeal was allowed for the periods in question.

Ebuyer (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 611 (TC) 4 July 2023 This case concerns HMRC's failure to comply with an Unless Order requiring disclosure to Ebuyer; HMRC conceded omission of seven documents and was found to have failed to produce further categories of documents relevant to contested issues of due diligence and knowledge. Applying the Denton test, the tribunal held the breaches were serious and significant, that HMRC did not show good reason for the defaults, and refused relief from the automatic sanction (bar from further participation). Ebuyer may apply for permission to appeal within 56 days.

Spirit Motor Company Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 614 (TC) 30 June 2023 This appeal concerned whether HMRC properly issued surcharge liability notices (SLNs) to Spirit Motor Company Ltd for VAT periods 08/21 and 11/21 and whether the company had an objectively reasonable excuse for late filing/payment. The tribunal found the SLNs were properly issued, the company conceded the defaults, and the evidence did not establish an objectively reasonable excuse (including reliance on a direct debit and Covid-related disruption). The appeal was dismissed and the surcharges remain payable.

Aizio Associated Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 576 (TC) 29 June 2023 This appeal concerned Schedule 24 VAT penalties imposed on Aizio Associated Ltd and Personal Liability Notices (PLNs) on two former directors after HMRC assessed best‑judgment figures for missing records following the loss of a laptop. The Tribunal found three returns (08/19, 11/19, 01/20) contained deliberate but not concealed omissions of output tax and confirmed penalties totalling £10,251.62 and the PLNs (Mr Campbell £3,417.20; Mr Billard £6,834.42), but allowed appeals for five earlier periods where returns were held to have been accurate when filed despite later loss of supporting evidence. Parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Waterloo Car Hire (a partnership) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 549 (TC) 29 June 2023 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out a 2020 Tribunal appeal by Waterloo Car Hire which sought to reopen 2015 closure notices and discovery assessments about whether second‑hand cars were trading stock or capital items. The Tribunal held the 2020 appeal re‑litigated the same subject‑matter and underlying right already finally decided in 2016, and that the partnership could and should have raised the capital allowance computations earlier. The 2020 appeal was struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) as barred by res judicata/cause of action estoppel and, alternatively, under Rule 8(3)(c) as an abuse of process. The usual right to apply for permission to appeal was preserved.

Polyteck Building Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 575 (TC) 28 June 2023 Polyteck appealed a VAT default surcharge for period 03/21 after paying late; the Tribunal found the company was in statutory default, had not shown a reasonable excuse, and that HMRC’s surcharge (as reduced on review to £20,165.61) was correctly calculated and payable. The Tribunal also found HMRC’s SLN and SLNEs were validly served at the registered address and the appellant did not rebut the presumption of service. Requests for time-to-pay were not agreed before the due date, so did not prevent default.

Sentinel Fire and Security Systems Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 550 (TC) 26 June 2023 Sentinel claimed Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme payments for an employee (Mr Boddice) but HMRC assessed repayment of £17,777.81 because the employer's RTI submission including his earnings was received by HMRC on 25 March 2020, after the relevant CJRS cut‑off. The First‑tier Tribunal found the RTI cut‑off was not met, upheld HMRC's assessment as valid and correctly quantified, and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal held it could not refuse clawback on grounds of fairness or the Scheme's "spirit."

Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 547 (TC) 23 June 2023 Illuminate Skin Clinics Ltd appealed HMRC's denial of VAT exemption for supplies in period 12/16, arguing treatments were medical care. The First-tier Tribunal found the clinic's supplies were not "medical care" within Item 1 of Group 7 Schedule 9 and that Item 4 did not apply for that period; the appeal was dismissed and HMRC's standard-rating and s.73 assessment were upheld.

Patrick Ashe v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 538 (TC) 22 June 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2018/19 and related failure-to-notify penalties. The Tribunal found Mr Ashe was unaware of HICBC until HMRC's 7 Jan 2021 nudge, that an alleged 2013 SA252 was not shown to have been received, and that he acted promptly once notified. The Tribunal allowed the appeals for 2015/16 and 2016/17 (assessments time-barred), stayed the 2017/18 and 2018/19 appeals pending related litigation, and cancelled all failure-to-notify penalties.

Pierre Andre Divisia v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 543 (TC) 22 June 2023 This appeal concerned a best-judgment VAT assessment of £7,612 for 04/18–04/20 and HMRC’s simultaneous revocation of Pierre Andre Divisia’s Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) authorisation. The Tribunal held HMRC’s assessment was properly made to the best of their judgment using material supplied by the appellant, but HMRC acted unreasonably in terminating his FRS authorisation as not shown to be “necessary for the protection of the revenue.” The assessment was remitted to apply the correct FRS rates to HMRC’s determined outputs; the appellant was granted permission to appeal out of time.

Naila Hussain v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 545 (TC) 21 June 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and penalties for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2014/15–2019/20 and related failure-to-notify and late-filing penalties. The Tribunal found Ms Hussain lacked knowledge of HICBC until HMRC's "nudge" letter of 4 November 2019, which ended her reasonable excuse; her subsequent delay in remedying the liability was unreasonable. HMRC's discovery assessments and the Schedule 41 and Schedule 55 penalties were upheld and the appeal was refused.

SB Wakefield Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 548 (TC) 19 June 2023 SB Wakefield appealed a 2% VAT default surcharge for period 10/21, arguing a Time To Pay Agreement (TTPA) had been agreed before the electronic payment deadline for 10/20 so that the earlier default would not trigger the surcharge regime, or alternatively that they reasonably believed such a TTPA existed. The Tribunal found no TTPA in place by the payment deadline of 7.12.20, concluded the TTPA was only agreed on 21.12.20, rejected the reasonable‑belief defence, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the £1,607.14 surcharge.

Meades v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 544 (TC) 15 June 2023 HMRC issued a closure notice amending Mr Meades’ 2019–20 self‑assessment to charge him £1,076 under the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC); the First-tier Tribunal dismissed his appeal. Although HMRC had relied on Condition B, the Tribunal found that Condition B was incorrectly applied but that Condition A was satisfied because Mr Meades was entitled to Child Benefit (by prior award and his contributions) and his adjusted net income exceeded his partner’s. The closure notice and amendment were therefore upheld.

Ameet Shah (as executor of the estate of Anantrai Maneklal Shah deceased) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 539 (TC) 14 June 2023 This appeal concerned whether Anantrai Maneklal Shah (AMS) was domiciled in England and Wales at his 2016 death for inheritance tax. The Tribunal found AMS acquired a domicile of choice in England and Wales after migrating there around 1973 and did not abandon it before death, dismissing the appellant’s claim of an intention to return to India. The Tribunal did not decide AMS’s domicile of origin as it was unnecessary to the outcome.

Bakery Badjie v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 537 (TC) 14 June 2023 This case concerns Bakery Badjie's appeal against four Schedule 24 FA 2007 inaccuracy penalties for tax years 2016/17–2019/20 totaling £1,952.94, arising from large travel and subsistence and other expense claims in self-assessment returns. The Tribunal found Mr Badjie had not taken reasonable care, rejected his defence of reliance on an accountant and lack of receipts, treated the disclosures as prompted by HMRC, and dismissed the appeal, leaving the penalties intact.

Hare Wines Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 536 (TC) 14 June 2023 Hare Wines Limited appealed an excise duty assessment of £1,126 and a wrongdoing penalty of £957, relying solely on a disputed Shakthi invoice. The Tribunal found HMRC had shown before the hearing that the invoice was not genuine and that HWL acted unreasonably in bringing and conducting the appeal against the Assessment, but refused the costs claim insofar as it related to the Penalty. HMRC was awarded costs of £20,764.85 (two-thirds apportioned to the Assessment, one-third to the Penalty).

3D CROWD CIC v THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS [2023] UKFTT 495 (TC) 12 June 2023 3D Crowd CIC, a community interest company that rapidly produced and donated 3D-printed face shields in early 2020, sought recovery of VAT it had incurred on accreditation, production and overhead costs. HMRC denied recovery on the basis the supplies were donated; the tribunal found 3D was an intending trader and allowed recovery of VAT on BSI/CE accreditation costs in full, while VAT on production and overheads was only recoverable to the extent attributable to business (requiring apportionment). The appeal was therefore allowed in part, with parties directed to agree or have the tribunal determine an apportionment.

Raystra Healthcare Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 496 (TC) 12 June 2023 Raystra Healthcare appealed an HMRC assessment seeking recovery of Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments made in respect of six employees on the ground that payroll software had left RTI submissions in "test" mode so no RTI had been filed on or before 19 March 2020. The Tribunal found the statutory RTI requirement for CJRS entitlement was not met, rejected any exception for third‑party/software fault, reduced the assessment to £15,170.48 and otherwise dismissed the appeal; late permission to appeal was granted.

Walkers Snack Foods Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 31 (TC) 8 June 2023 Walkers appealed HMRC's decision that its Sensations Poppadoms are standard-rated as falling within Excepted item 5 of Schedule 8 VATA 1994. The Tribunal found the products are packaged for consumption without further preparation, contain substantial potato-derived content (c.40%) including potato granules that count as "the potato", and on a multifactorial assessment are "similar to" potato crisps; the appeal was dismissed. Fiscal neutrality did not require a different outcome.

Innovation Rehab Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 472 (TC) 6 June 2023 Innovation Rehab appealed HMRC's reclassification and post-clearance demand for ten imported inflatable/pre-inflated hospital-care plastic products. The Tribunal found that all ten items were correctly classifiable under CN 9021 10 10 00 up to 28 March 2019, but from 29 March 2019 four items remained in 9021 while six were classifiable under CN 3926 90 97 90 following the publication of Additional Note 2. The Tribunal held that the 2019 Official Journal publication put traders on notice, so Innovation Rehab could not rely on HMRC's 2005 telephone guidance for imports after that date.

Maxxim Residential Design Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 474 (TC) 2 June 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC s73 best‑judgment VAT assessments and Schedule 24 penalties arising from Maxxim Residential Design Ltd’s repayments claims for VAT periods 03/13–06/14. The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s best‑judgment assessments for 12/13, 03/14 and 06/14 but set aside earlier period assessments (03/13, 06/13, 09/13) as out of time. The Tribunal found the 06/14 input‑tax claim involved invoices supplied by the appellant that conflicted with suppliers’ records, concluding the 06/14 inaccuracy was deliberate and concealed and that the earlier inaccuracies were deliberate with prompted disclosure, and upheld the Schedule 24 penalties accordingly.

Nicky Howard-Ravenspine v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 471 (TC) 2 June 2023 The tribunal considered whether part of a £93,357 2016 severance payment to Ms Howard‑Ravenspine was exempt from the 2016/17 High Income Child Benefit Charge under the statutory disability exemption. It held that £83,907 of the payment was paid on account of incapacity and therefore fell within the disability exemption, rejecting HMRC’s all‑or‑nothing interpretation of the relevant test. The exempted element reduced the appellant’s adjusted net income below the HICBC threshold and the discovery assessment was discharged.

Top-Notch Accountants Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 473 (TC) 2 June 2023 Top-Notch Accountants Ltd appealed an HMRC assessment seeking recovery of alleged overpaid Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) grants for one employee, principally disputing the dates on which RTI/FPS submissions including that employee were made. The Tribunal accepted HMRC's RTI records as clear and reliable, rejected the appellant's bank statements and RTI confirmations as inconsistent and not credible, and found the first RTI for the employee was lodged on 16 April 2020 (not before 19 March 2020). The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was varied to £14,673.47.

WWM Rose & Sons Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 470 (TC) 31 May 2023 WWM Rose & Sons Ltd failed to pay £96,802.73 VAT by the due date 7 March 2022 and HMRC imposed a 2% default surcharge of £1,936.05. The Tribunal found the company was in statutory default, no Time-to-Pay agreement had been agreed before the due date, and the company did not establish a reasonable excuse (ordinary cashflow problems were insufficient). The surcharge was held to be lawfully due and correctly calculated.

Hughes Property Partners Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 453 (TC) 25 May 2023 This appeal challenged Schedule 55 penalties for a late ATED relief return; the return was due 16 Sept 2020 and filed 12 May 2021. The Tribunal held the appellant’s explanations (agent unfamiliarity with ATED, Covid-19 pressures and workload) did not amount to a reasonable excuse and HMRC’s refusal to apply a special-circumstances reduction was not flawed. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties upheld.

Coonley Trading Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 452 (TC) 24 May 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC’s disallowance of input VAT claimed by Coonley Trading Ltd for periods 10/17–04/19, related penalties, and a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) for the company’s director. The Tribunal found the company had not provided the required documentary evidence to support the input tax claims, upheld amended VAT assessments and penalties, and concluded the inaccuracies were deliberate and attributable to the director so the PLN was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

David Hamill v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 451 (TC) 23 May 2023 This appeal concerned whether Mr Hamill was entitled to two SEISS Support Payments for 2019/20–2020/21 and whether HMRC’s paragraph 9 Schedule 16 FA 2020 assessment reclaiming £1,519 was correct, competent and in time. The Tribunal found the appellant had ceased trading in 2018/19, was not self‑employed in 2019/20 or 2020/21, and therefore was never eligible for the payments. The Tribunal upheld the Schedule 16 assessment and dismissed the appeal; no penalties were imposed.

Suterwalla & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 450 (TC) 23 May 2023 The Suterwallas appealed an HMRC closure notice that recharacterised their December 2020 purchase of Woodlands House as entirely residential for SDLT by treating an adjacent paddock as part of the dwelling's "garden or grounds". The Tribunal found the paddock was functionally separate (separate title, not visible or integrated with the house, accessed independently) and subject to a commercial grazing lease on the effective date, and therefore did not form part of the dwelling's grounds. The appeal was allowed and HMRC's closure notice set aside.

Swiss Centre Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 449 (TC) 22 May 2023 This appeal concerned whether a c.£33.5m payment to NAMA (comprising an €11.5m Lavangna element and an "Additional Sum") was deductible by Swiss Centre Limited in 2011–12 either under the loan relationship rules or as expenditure reducing the chargeable gain on sale of the Swiss Centre. The tribunal found the Lavangna element arose from the Lavangna facility and not from a deductible loan relationship of SCL, and that the Additional Sum was paid for mixed group-wide purposes and did not satisfy the causal or "wholly and exclusively" tests. The appeal was dismissed and no part of the Disputed Sum was allowed as a corporation tax deduction for that period.

Nations Recruitment Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 494 (TC) 18 May 2023 This appeal concerned a 10% VAT default surcharge imposed on Nations Recruitment Ltd for late payment of VAT for period 03/22. The Tribunal found the company had no reasonable excuse: its predictable cashflow model and deliberate use of collected VAT to pay wages, combined with failure to follow HMRC advice or adopt available mitigations, meant the surcharge was properly imposed. The appeal was dismissed and the £523.23 surcharge upheld.

Vijayasarathi Baskararajulu v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 430 (TC) 18 May 2023 This appeal concerned £1,300 of late filing penalties for 2019–20 and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear appeals against two of the penalties and whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse or special circumstances. The Tribunal found the appellant’s 1 January 2022 correspondence to HMRC constituted notice of appeal to the relevant officer and exercised its discretion to permit late notification of two penalties, but held the appellant had no reasonable excuse for an eight‑month late return and refused to reduce penalties for special circumstances. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties confirmed.

Philip Leslie Jinks v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 431 (TC) 17 May 2023 This appeal challenged HMRC conduct and sought relief for asserted overpayments and business losses; HMRC applied to strike it out for lack of jurisdiction. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain complaints amounting to judicial‑review‑type challenges to HMRC decision‑makers, to hear data‑protection complaints, or to extend statutory time limits for Self Assessment overpayment claims, and found the loss claims unsubstantiated. The Tribunal allowed HMRC’s strike‑out application and struck out the appeal in full.

Dr Harry Nduka v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 420 (TC) 15 May 2023 Dr Harry Nduka appealed HMRC's disallowance of most of his 2016–17 self‑assessment employment expense claims. The Tribunal found his evidence sparse and inconsistent, allowed only a £499 deduction for an RCOG subscription, and dismissed the remainder of his claimed expenses and the argument that an earlier HMRC enquiry invalidated the later enquiry. The case was remitted to HMRC to recalculate tax for 2016–17 with the £499 deduction.

P. R. B. Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 421 (TC) 15 May 2023 This case concerns P. R. B. Trading Ltd’s applications for permission to bring late appeals against multiple VAT input tax assessments and a penalty. The tribunal held the statutory appeal time ran from the formal "Notice of VAT assessments" dated 6 November 2017 (not an earlier accompanying letter), treated most input tax appeals as brought on 14 November 2018 (the penalty appeal on 29 October 2019), found the delays serious but HMRC not significantly prejudiced, and exercised its discretion to permit the late appeals and waive procedural defects.

Paul Baxendale-Walker v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 676 (TC) 12 May 2023 This case concerns whether bankrupt Mr Paul Baxendale-Walker could personally apply under s28A(4) TMA 1970 for a final closure notice in respect of tax enquiries for years to 5 April 2008–2016. The Tribunal held that because issuing a closure notice would crystallise a tax liability affecting the bankrupt's estate, the right to apply vested in the Trustee in Bankruptcy, not the bankrupt, and consequently Mr Baxendale-Walker's application was struck out for want of standing.

NWM Solutions Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 448 (TC) 11 May 2023 This appeal concerned whether subsistence payments made by NWM Solutions Ltd were taxable "round sum allowances" or reimbursements under an HMRC dispensation, and whether HMRC could assess tax without first revoking the dispensation. The Tribunal refused HMRC's late attempt to increase quantum, found the payments were reimbursed subsistence within a dispensation whose qualifying conditions NWM satisfied on the balance of probabilities, and held HMRC could not assess those payments while the dispensation remained in force. The appeal was allowed and the Determinations and Decisions were set aside.

Andrzej Niec v Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 415 (TC) 10 May 2023 Mr Andrzej Niec, a Polish lorry driver, sought an order that the Tribunal appoint a Polish‑speaking "ex‑officio attorney" to represent him in an appeal against an excise duty assessment and penalty, citing lack of English and inability to pay. The Tribunal refused the application, holding it had no power to require HMCTS to provide free legal representation outside the statutory legal aid scheme, found the excise assessment civil but the penalty "criminal" for Article 6 purposes, and concluded that absence of a lawyer did not necessarily prevent a fair hearing (a Polish interpreter will be provided).

City Plant Ltd v Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 414 (TC) 10 May 2023 City Plant applied for permission to bring a late appeal against a £1,673,701 landfill tax assessment issued in 2012, arguing reasons including reliance on adviser KPMG and HMRC conduct; the Tribunal applied the established three‑stage test for admitting late appeals and refused permission. The Tribunal found the delay was very substantial with no adequate explanation, City Plant’s substantive case was not shown to be compelling, and the passage of time would likely prejudice the parties, so the late appeal was not admitted.

Grzegorz Szczepaniak v Director of Border Revenue [2023] UKFTT 416 (TC) 10 May 2023 This appeal concerned Border Force’s refusal to restore a lorry and trailer from which 2,687,800 concealed cigarettes were seized and whether the reviewer’s decision applying Part C(2) of the Border Force Restoration Policy was one the Force could reasonably have arrived at. The First-tier Tribunal reheard the facts, found Mr Szczepaniak complicit in large‑scale smuggling, held Officer Hodge’s application of Part C(2) and refusal to restore were reasonable and proportionate, and dismissed the appeal.

Edward Lam Shang Leen v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 407 (TC) 5 May 2023 Dr Edward Lam Shang Leen appealed against an HMRC information notice issued under Schedule 36 FA 2008 seeking company records to check his 2017–18 self‑assessment. The Tribunal found Condition B (reason to suspect under‑assessment) was met because of a large unexplained discrepancy between substantial personal bank lodgements and low company turnover, and held the company documents were "reasonably required." The appeal was dismissed, the Notice confirmed with specified amendments, and the appellant ordered to comply within 30 days.

ABA Motors Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 406 (TC) 3 May 2023 This case concerns ABA Motors Ltd's application under VATA s84 to proceed with an appeal without first paying or depositing £110,310 VAT, on grounds of hardship. The First-tier Tribunal accepted the director's credible oral evidence that ABA and its related company YBA lacked funds or assets and that YBA could not provide funds, and therefore allowed the hardship application so the appeal may proceed without payment.

PPX Metal Management Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 405 (TC) 3 May 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC’s refusal to allow PPX input tax claims of about £3.57m for 659 purchases from 11 suppliers traced to fraudulent VAT defaults. The Tribunal found that each supply chain began with fraudulent VAT evasion, that PPX’s purchases were connected to that fraud, and on the balance of probabilities Mr Pearce (PPX) knew — alternatively should have known — of that connection. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s denial upheld.

St Patrick’s International College Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 408 (TC) 3 May 2023 This appeal concerned whether three private higher education providers (SPIC, LCCA and IMAN) were entitled to VAT exemption under Article 132(1)(i) PVD as implemented by Group 6, Schedule 9 VATA 1994, or under Item 5B of that Group, for supplies made between 1 Dec 2012 and 6 Aug 2017. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' direct-effect and fiscal-neutrality challenges, held that SPIC and LCCA’s fees paid via SLC loans were not "ultimately a charge to funds provided by the Secretary of State" for Item 5B, found IMAN was not a "college of a university" for Note 1(b), and confined Note 1(f) exemption to TEFL supplies. The appeals were dismissed in principle and directions were given for final determination of quantum.

Uflex Europe Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 409 (TC) 3 May 2023 This appeal concerned classification of imported pet-food bags made from woven polypropylene strips visibly coated with non-cellular plastic, and a separate claim to retrospective preferential treatment by late GSP proof-of-origin certificates. The Tribunal allowed the appeal on classification, holding the bags fell under CN heading 3923 (plastics) not 6305 (textile sacks), but dismissed the claim for late acceptance of GSP certificates, finding no “exceptional circumstances.”

Robert Williams v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 429 (TC) 2 May 2023 This case concerned whether a letter of 6 September 2018 constituted a valid negligible value claim under schedule 1A to the Tax Management Act and whether the First-tier Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear an appeal after HMRC removed the claimed loss by closure notice. The Tribunal held the letter did not satisfy the form and declaration requirements in paragraph 2 of schedule 1A TMA. Because no statutory right of appeal arose where a claim was not made in the prescribed form, the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction and struck out Mr Williams’s appeal. The decision noted Mr Williams could remake a negligible value claim and had rights to seek permission to appeal.

Elbrook (Cash & Carry) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 403 (TC) 28 April 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments denying input VAT of £1,273,739.55 claimed by Elbrook for 335 soft-drink purchases on the ground the supplies were connected to MTIC-style VAT fraud and Elbrook knew or ought to have known. The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion, that Sparrowhawk and DZ participated in the orchestrated loss-making chains, and that Mr Amjad Khalid (and thus Elbrook) knew or ought to have known of the connection. Elbrook’s appeals were dismissed and HMRC’s denial of input tax was upheld.

Mohammed Zaman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 404 (TC) 28 April 2023 This is a reconsideration by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) of a VAT assessment on Zamco (appeal by Mohammed Zaman) after the Upper Tribunal set aside the FTT’s original 24 June 2021 decision for an error of law on the evidential burden. The central issue was whether, applying the correct allocation of the evidential burden (on the taxpayer), the FTT could conclude on the balance of probabilities that the VAT assessment was incorrect. The FTT found the taxpayer’s documentary material had significant evidential weight because it was extensive and partly corroborated, but also identified weaknesses and re-expressed some original findings, proceeding to a fresh reconsideration within the UT’s remit.

Louis Daniel Moore v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 399 (TC) 25 April 2023 This appeal concerned whether RSUs granted to Mr Moore on the sale of Wombat to the NYSE formed part of the sale consideration (and so attracted a deductible amount under s480(2) ITEPA) or were employment-related incentive/retention payments taxable as earnings. The Tribunal found the transaction valued the business at $200m and that the $25m RSU pool (including Mr Moore’s $10m allocation) was intended and treated as an employee retention/incentive arrangement, so the claimed £9m deduction was not allowable. The appeal was dismissed and income tax liability on the RSU vesting was upheld, with valuation matters reserved.

Toby Hextall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 390 (TC) 25 April 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge for 2015-16 to 2017-18. The Tribunal found the 2017-18 assessment was within the normal four-year time limit and dismissed the appeal for that year, but quashed the 2015-16 and 2016-17 assessments because they fell outside four years and the taxpayer did not fail to take reasonable care and had a reasonable excuse for late notification. The Tribunal treated the wording of the Child Benefit claim form and the absence of targeted communications as supporting an objective reasonable excuse.

Yorkshire Agricultural Society v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 389 (TC) 25 April 2023 This case concerned whether HMRC's VAT assessment for the Great Yorkshire Show was issued in time and whether the Show's admission receipts were exempt as fundraising by a charity under Schedule 9 Group 12 Items 1(a)–(c) VATA 1994 (read compatibly with the VAT Directive). The Tribunal found the assessment for 12/17 was out of time and allowed the appeal, and held alternatively that the Show qualified for exemption because it was organised for charitable purposes, fundraising was a primary/main purpose, and it was promoted as being for fundraising (with the word "primarily" read down/struck down). The Society’s repayment claim was allowed insofar as it related to the Show for 2016 and 2017.

Giles Ellis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 388 (TC) 24 April 2023 This decision concerns two interlocutory applications in an appeal against a personal liability notice making the appellant liable for 50% of a penalty imposed on ICL, a company he directed. The Tribunal admitted seven late HMRC witness statements as relevant but attached an Unless Order to future directions to secure compliance, ordered HMRC to disclose how ICL's penalty (including any rebate) was calculated and to clarify "end user" (e.g. by witness statement), and dismissed the appellant's request for the Insolvency Service report on the co-director as irrelevant. Directions were given to progress to a substantive hearing.

Steven James Mort v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 387 (TC) 24 April 2023 This appeal concerned Mr Mort's claim for VAT repayment under the DIY housebuilders' refund scheme, with HMRC disputing whether numerous supplies were zero-rated construction services or standard-rated supplies of goods (and whether certain items were "building materials" or excluded as furniture). The Tribunal applied the predominant-element test to each invoiced supply, finding some supplies to be predominantly services (zero-rated) and others predominantly goods (standard-rated), and held fitted bedroom furniture to be furniture not building materials. The appeal was allowed in part, with Mr Mort recovering an additional £16,683.81.

Asset House Piccadilly Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 385 (TC) 19 April 2023 This appeal challenged an HMRC Schedule 16 information notice issued to Asset House Piccadilly Ltd alleging it may have enabled abusive remuneration‑trust/fiduciary‑receipt arrangements used by named taxpayers. The First‑tier Tribunal found the officer had reasonable grounds to suspect the appellant might be liable to an enabler penalty, rejected abuse‑of‑process and Article 6/self‑incrimination objections at the investigative stage, amended the Notice to limit requests to material originating within six years, and dismissed the appeal.

GLO-BALL GROUP LIMITED v THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS [2023] UKFTT 435 (TC) 19 April 2023 Glo-Ball Group appealed HMRC assessments denying £9,486.38 of Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme claims, arguing director-employee Michelle Dowler had been furloughed. The tribunal found most of her social-media posts during lockdown were "work" intended to generate income or enhance the employer’s goodwill, so she had not ceased all work for the required 21 consecutive days. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s assessments were upheld.

Ante Mikalic v The Director of Border Force [2023] UKFTT 377 (TC) 18 April 2023 This appeal concerns an application for permission to bring a late appeal against Border Force’s refusal (4 Feb 2022) to restore a vehicle seized after a search at Dover on 14 Oct 2021. The Tribunal found a 34‑day delay in lodging the appeal but accepted credible medical evidence of Covid‑19 and post‑Covid recovery as a good reason for most of the delay, and that the remaining days were satisfactorily explained. Balancing prejudice, the Tribunal admitted the appeal out of time and directed the Director of Border Force to file a Statement of Case.

Cranham Sports LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 373 (TC) 18 April 2023 Cranham Sports LLP sought permission to bring a 60‑day late appeal against HMRC determinations and notices under the IR35 regime for 2014–2019 after HMRC issued an opinion and a "view of the matter" letter requiring review or appeal within 30 days. The First‑tier Tribunal applied the statutory 30‑day rule and the Martland/Denton test, found the delay serious and unexplained (professional representative’s failures being attributed to the applicant), and refused permission to bring the appeal out of time.

Sports Invest UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 376 (TC) 18 April 2023 This appeal concerned whether a €4m payment from Inter to Sports Invest was consideration for services supplied to Inter (place of supply Italy) or third‑party consideration for services supplied to the player (which could give UK VAT implications). The tribunal found the Waiver Letter effective so Sports Invest had no legal right to payment from the player, held the payment was for services supplied to Inter (place of supply Italy), and allowed the appeal. The tribunal also concluded that, alternatively, paragraph 10 Schedule 4A VATA would have applied to place the supply outside the UK if needed.

Tasca Tankers Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 372 (TC) 18 April 2023 Tasca Tankers appealed HMRC’s assessments seeking recovery of £214,386 input tax paid on purchases HMRC says were connected to VAT fraud; HMRC applied to strike out the appeal on the basis Tasca should have known of the fraud. The First-tier Tribunal reviewed the agreed facts and witness statements, found Tasca had advanced a possible innocent explanation that required testing, identified evidential gaps but held HMRC had not shown there was no realistic prospect of Tasca rebutting the fraud connection, and dismissed the strike-out application.

Innate-Essence Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 371 (TC) 17 April 2023 Innate‑Essence Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to correct VAT treatment of its 60ml turmeric "Shots", arguing they are zero‑rated food rather than standard‑rated "other beverages". The Tribunal applied a multi‑factorial test, including established beverage indicators (thirst‑quenching, fortifying, pleasure, substitution) and found the Shots were consumed for regular long‑term health benefits, had an unpleasant taste, small single‑dose packaging and were marketed as health products. The Tribunal held the Shots were not "other beverages" and therefore were correctly zero‑rated as food; the appeal was allowed.

Marie Guerlain-Desai v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 374 (TC) 17 April 2023 This case concerns Marie Guerlain-Desai's application for permission to bring a stamp duty land tax (SDLT) appeal 42 days late against an amended HMRC assessment. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Denton/Martland approach, found the 42‑day delay could be "serious and significant", treated the representative's administrative error as imputable to the appellant, but on balance granted permission because the delay was promptly remedied and the appeal had arguable merits.

Thariq Mohammed v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 375 (TC) 14 April 2023 This interlocutory judgment refused the Appellant permission to rely on documents in a belated 13th List of Documents and excluded most of the Appellant’s second witness statement, admitting only paragraphs 1, 3, 5 and 46 subject to compliance with further directions. The Tribunal applied the Denton three‑stage test and emphasised the cumulative effect of repeated, unexplained delay close to a listed hearing, concluding that admitting the late material would prejudice HMRC and disrupt case management and the hearing timetable.

Dr Pradip Kumar Sheth v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 368 (TC) 13 April 2023 Dr Sheth participated in Sanzar and Darwinpay EBT loan schemes and received large loans in 2009/10 and 2010/11. The First-tier Tribunal held those loans (or equivalent amounts) were in substance redirected earnings and taxable as employment income, upheld HMRC’s discovery assessments (2009/10: £27,120.90) and directed the 2010/11 assessment to be increased to include additional Sanzar loans (HMRC’s figure c. £18,315–18,350.60 to be finalised). The appeal was dismissed.

Oladipupo Abijola Fagbewesa v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 367 (TC) 12 April 2023 This appeal challenged a civil evasion penalty of £26,835 after 61,800 cigarettes were seized from holdalls matched to the appellant at Heathrow. The Tribunal admitted the late appeal, found Border Force and HMRC witnesses credible, rejected the appellant’s inconsistent account, and on the balance of probabilities concluded he owned the cigarettes. A 5% reduction for limited cooperation was applied and the penalty was upheld.

Benjamin Simon Alan Cooke v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 369 (TC) 11 April 2023 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 (late filing) and Schedule 56 (late payment) penalties arising from the appellant’s liability to the High-Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC). HMRC showed the appellant was in default (late filings for 2017–18 and 2018–19 and late payments for 2016–17 to 2018–19); the appellant relied on unfamiliarity with online services, access difficulties and repayment of Child Benefit. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse and no special circumstances warranting reduction, dismissed the appeal and left penalties in place as adjusted by HMRC (total £2,154).

Mohammad Azharul Islam Sikder v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 362 (TC) 5 April 2023 The appellant, a Bangladeshi former student, sought repayment under Article 19 of the Bangladesh/UK DTA for UK income tax paid while studying, but HMRC refused the claim as out of time. The Tribunal held that Part 2 of TIOPA giving effect to the DTA is an enactment relating to income tax within the "Taxes Acts", so the TMA time‑limit provisions (including the four‑year limit) apply to claims under section 6(6) TIOPA. The appellant’s claim was out of time, there was no appealable decision, and the appeal was struck out.

Zoe Shisha Events Limited v The Commissioners for HMTC [2023] UKFTT 398 (TC) 5 April 2023 Zoe Shisha Events Ltd appealed HMRC assessments totalling £14,895 alleging overclaimed CJRS payments for two employees. The Tribunal found the assessments were validly made and notified (despite being addressed to the director), accepted HMRC’s concession that the claim for Mr El Sayed was correct, but rejected the company’s contention that director Ms Muntean’s reference salary before 19 March 2020 was £3,000 and held it was £600. The first assessment was reduced to £7,735; the remainder of the appeal was dismissed.

James Scott v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 360 (TC) 4 April 2023 This appeal concerned whether the Finance Act 2019 s36A 12-year offshore assessment limit applied to 2013-14 and 2014-15 where the taxpayer was not careless, and whether para 26 Schedule 18 FA 2017 (“requirement to correct”) remained available to extend time to assess. The Tribunal held s80(5) FA 2019 restricts s36A so it only reaches those years where loss was brought about carelessly, and that para 26 Schedule 18 was not impliedly repealed and remained available to make the assessments in time. The appeal was dismissed and the discovery assessments were held to be validly raised.

John Buckingham v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 358 (TC) 4 April 2023 This case concerns Mr Buckingham's appeal against HMRC's treatment of a $103.75 per‑share "Special Dividend" paid on the DPS/Keurig merger and procedural challenges to HMRC's actions. The First‑tier Tribunal held that the discovery assessment issued by Mr Butler was valid, that $29.50 per share was income and $74.25 per share was capital (capital not taxable as income in the UK), and that a later statutory review varying the assessment was flawed and out of time, so the original discovery assessment stands.

Liban Awdon v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 361 (TC) 4 April 2023 This appeal by Mr Liban Awdon against HMRC closure notices, discovery assessments and penalties was heard in his absence after he failed to attend; HMRC's calculations based on bank records (with a 5% uplift for unbanked cash and a continuity presumption for later years) were accepted. The Tribunal found HMRC had validly raised the notices and assessments, that Mr Awdon failed to discharge the burden to show different figures, and upheld the penalties for carelessness (with a 25% reduction applied).

NWM Solutions Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 364 (TC) 4 April 2023 This appeal concerned whether subsistence payments made by NWM Solutions Ltd were taxable "round sum allowances" or reimbursements and whether an HMRC dispensation applied. The FTT found the payments were reimbursements, held the HMRC dispensation covered them (and that NWMSL met its qualifying conditions), refused HMRC leave to increase the quantum late in proceedings, and set aside the determinations and NIC decisions.

Oral Healthcare Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 357 (TC) 4 April 2023 Oral Healthcare Ltd appealed HMRC’s assessment recovering CJRS grants, challenging the ineligibility of ten employees because their payment-of-earnings were not included in RTI FPS files by the statutory cut-off dates. The Tribunal found the statutory RTI cut-offs (principally 19 March 2020 and for later periods 31 October 2020) were not met and that there is no provision to extend eligibility for administrative or technical filing difficulties. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment was varied to £35,739.64.

Rolldeen Estates Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 359 (TC) 4 April 2023 This case concerned whether Sch 10 para 30 (commenced 1 June 2008) could be used to validate a purported option to tax (OTT) with an effective date of 10 January 2008 and whether Rolldeen had a right of appeal. The Tribunal held para 30 could validate the OTT only so far as it affected supplies made after 1 June 2008 (thus covering the 2015 sale), that Rolldeen had no right of appeal under VATA s 83(1)(wb) (appeal struck out for want of jurisdiction), and alternatively HMRC’s use of para 30 was reasonable; the £50,000 VAT assessment therefore remains payable.

Beigebell Limited (No 2) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 363 (TC) 3 April 2023 This re-hearing concerned Beigebell’s challenge to HMRC’s refusal to repay input VAT of £144,628.40 for period 10/15 and a related assessment, the sole issue being whether Beigebell (through director Jack Orton) knew or should have known the transactions were connected with MTIC fraud. The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s “duped by Patel/channel model” defence, found Orton not credible in key respects, concluded he had actual or “blind‑eye” knowledge (and accordingly should have known) of the fraud connection, and dismissed the appeal. HMRC’s denial of the repayment and the assessment were upheld.

Paul David Eveleigh v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 356 (TC) 3 April 2023 This appeal challenged an HMRC excise duty assessment of £121,666 arising from importation of 1,160 kg of hand-rolling tobacco and raised jurisdictional, discretion, proportionality and ECHR Article 1 Protocol 1 issues. The First-tier Tribunal held it had jurisdiction, found HMRC had no discretion to refrain from assessing duty where liability arises, treated the assessment as a non-penal quantification of an existing liability, and rejected proportionality and A1P1 objections. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment confirmed.

Morgan Lloyd Trustees Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 355 (TC) 31 March 2023 This case concerns appeals against HMRC assessments arising from pension‑funding transactions secured on IP (software, trademarks, domain names, websites, databases). The Tribunal determined what assets the contracts actually conveyed (notably that “domain name” meant the domain name only), evaluated valuation methodologies and market‑value tests under s.179/s.180 FA 2004 (upholding some HMRC assessments and rejecting some valuation challenges), and rejected s.268 relief for MLT where trustees did not reasonably believe payments were not scheme‑chargeable or applications were late. Outcomes: HMRC assessments were upheld for Ballards, Gannon and Langford; VAT was treated as recoverable (so sale/leaseback amounts were VAT‑exclusive) in Criticall, Gannon and Prisym; several s.268/s.267 applications were disallowed as late or unreasonable.

Amarjeet Mudan & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 317 (TC) 28 March 2023 The Mudans bought 14 Liskeard Gardens and sought an SDLT refund contending the property was not a dwelling on completion; HMRC reopened the matter and issued a closure notice denying the refund. The tribunal found the property had been recently used as a dwelling and, despite needing substantial but curable works, was "suitable for use as a single dwelling" on 5 August 2019 and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal admitted post‑purchase reports as non‑expert factual material and allowed them limited weight.

James Charles Pride as trustee of the estate of the late Geraldine Jill Pride v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 316 (TC) 28 March 2023 This appeal concerned whether loan notes and related liabilities created in 2002 formed part of the deceased Mrs Pride’s estate for inheritance tax (IHT) or should be abated or ignored. The tribunal held that by operation of s49(1) the loan-note liability was treated as a debt of Mrs Pride but that s103 abated that liability in full because the whole of the consideration for the debt consisted of property derived from her; alternatively, the tribunal would have excluded the liability under s175A as a tax-advantaged arrangement lacking a real commercial reason. HMRC’s s102 recharacterisation and re‑characterisation under para 6/s268 were rejected.

Jeremy Coller v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 212 (TC) 28 March 2023 This appeal concerned the domiciles of John, Sylvia and Jeremy Coller for inheritance tax purposes, with HMRC arguing each had acquired an English domicile of choice by key dates. The tribunal applied established domicile law and found HMRC discharged its burden: John had an English domicile of choice by 17 May 1958 (and by his death 31 August 1968), Sylvia by 17 May 1974, and Jeremy by 5 April 2012, so the appeal was dismissed.

Mediability Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 315 (TC) 28 March 2023 Mediability Ltd appealed VAT assessments (1998–2002) contending supplies were made to Karacus Ltd (Gibraltar) and/or were re‑supplies, and asserting an abuse‑of‑rights defence. The tribunal struck out all four consolidated appeals under Rule 8(3)(c) as having no reasonable prospect of success, alternatively as an abuse of process, finding contemporaneous documents and prior findings (the Wilmslow Decision) showed the arrangements were designed to obtain a VAT advantage and undermined Mediability’s case. No fresh witness evidence was filed to counter adverse contemporaneous interview notes and documents.

Gary Lineker & Anor t/a Gary Lineker Media v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 340 (TC) 27 March 2023 The Tribunal held that the IR35 intermediaries rules can, in principle, apply where services are supplied through a partnership and that GLM was a partnership. However, because the BBC and BT Sport contracts were signed by Mr Lineker (and Ms Bux) in a way that created direct contractual privity between the broadcasters and Mr Lineker, the intermediaries legislation could not apply and the appellants' appeal succeeded.

Ashley Charles Trees v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 339 (TC) 24 March 2023 This case concerns HMRC's applications in Mr Ashley Charles Trees' appeal against a Director's Liability Notice (DLN) following a civil evasion penalty issued to CCA Distribution Ltd. The First-tier Tribunal struck out parts of Mr Trees' appeal that sought to relitigate the FTT's earlier unappealed finding that he knew CCA's transactions were connected to fraud, and admitted the earlier CCA 2020 judgment as evidence for the DLN proceedings. The Tribunal left any separate legal issue of dishonesty for determination at the DLN hearing but directed that parties proceed on the basis that the prior knowledge findings are binding.

Vanrooyen (Elite Prestige Supercars) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 338 (TC) 23 March 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC denials of input tax recovery and refusals of zero‑rating for vehicle transactions by Vanrooyen (Elite Prestige Supercars) Ltd, linked in HMRC's tracing to fraudulent VAT defaults in the chains. The Tribunal found HMRC had accurately traced the chains, that the Appellant either knew or should have known its transactions were connected to VAT fraud (actual and constructive knowledge), and that the Appellant failed to show it met mandatory formalities for new‑means‑of‑transport zero‑rating. The appeal was dismissed in full.

Dalriada Trustees Limited (as Administrator of the Grosvenor Parade Pension Scheme & Ors) & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 314 (TC) 21 March 2023 This case concerns reciprocal member-to-member pension loans (MPVA loans) operated within the Ark Schemes' Pensions Reciprocation Plan and whether those loans gave rise to unauthorised member payments (UMPs), deemed UMPs and attendant tax charges and surcharges. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities and based on contemporaneous spreadsheets, that member-to-member matching was intended, so lending schemes’ MPVA loans were actual UMPs apportioned to matched members, and borrowers also received deemed UMPs taxed under the benefits code (ITEPA Chapter 7). Dalriada’s and Ms Oades’ applications to discharge scheme sanction charges and surcharges were dismissed.

Mark Northwood v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 351 (TC) 21 March 2023 This appeal concerned whether payments by sole-trader orthodontist Mr Northwood into a remuneration trust (RT) for 2010–2013 were deductible business expenses. The Tribunal found the accounts were not prepared in accordance with GAAP, the payments fell within UITF32/FRS5 analysis and should have been treated as assets not immediate expenses, and that the RT arrangements were a sham intended to conceal the true purpose (including tax advantage and retained control/benefit). The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld HMRC’s disallowance of the deductions.

Simon England & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 313 (TC) 15 March 2023 This appeal concerned whether a settlement agreement of 28 October 2013, under which two director/participators would pay £100,000 and the liquidator would release the remaining £909,063 of directors' loans, constituted a release/write-off attracting a charge under s.415 ITTOIA and when that release occurred. The First-tier Tribunal held the agreement was in substance a release for s.415 purposes and that the release occurred on execution of the agreement on 28 October 2013, so the tax charge arose in 2013–2014. The appellants' argument that the release was conditional on later payments was rejected. The appeal was refused; permission to appeal may be sought within 56 days.

Bharat Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 296 (TC) 14 March 2023 This First-tier Tribunal considered an application for permission to notify late appeals against ten VAT best‑judgement assessments (periods June 2012–Dec 2015; assessments issued June–Oct 2016) and income tax penalty assessments for 2012–2017. Applying the Martland three‑stage approach, the Tribunal found the VAT appeals were seriously out of time, the appellant's explanations (notably non‑receipt) were weak, and on balance the assessment letters were likely sent; permission to appeal late against the VAT and income tax penalty assessments was refused, the request to add three further VAT assessments was refused, and the proceedings were struck out.

James Faiers v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 297 (TC) 14 March 2023 This appeal concerned whether land at Agester Lodge crossed by an Eastern Power Networks pole and 11kV overhead cables formed part of the dwelling’s garden or grounds for SDLT purposes. The tribunal found that the presence of the pole and cables did not prevent the land from being part of the residential grounds given contiguity, continued ground-level use, limited aerial intrusion and the factual balance of constraints. The appeal was dismissed and the acquisition is treated as solely residential with SDLT calculated using Table A.

James O’Neil & Ors v v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 290 (TC) 14 March 2023 This case concerned whether a regulatory redress payment (the "Redress Payment") paid after a 2012 sale belonged to the selling partnership or to the purchaser company, and whether HMRC’s discovery assessments and carelessness penalties were valid. The Tribunal found the claim giving rise to the Redress Payment did not exist at the date of the 2012 Agreement, and that under Scots law no intimation to the debtor had been made so the right was not perfected as assigned to the company. The discovery assessments were therefore validly issued against the individual partners (the partnership having ceased), some penalties against Mr O’Neil were upheld and penalties against Mrs O’Neil and Mrs McCallum were cancelled.

Jonathan Manguiat v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 312 (TC) 14 March 2023 Mr Manguiat applied for permission to give late notices of appeal against three discovery assessments for the high income child benefit charge (HICBC). The Tribunal found a delay of over one year and ten months to be serious, and that the appellant's prospects of success were negligible because Finance Act 2022 removed the substantive defence relied on unless an appeal had been notified by 30 June 2021. Permission to admit the late appeals was refused.

Olu Olufote v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 130 (TC) 14 March 2023 The First-tier Tribunal dismissed Mr Olufote's appeal against HMRC, concluding that the Finance Act 2003 provisions (ss44, 45 and 75A), read with the connected-persons rule in s1122 CTA 2010, governed the SDLT characterisation of the transactions. The tribunal treated contracts substantially performed as single land transactions under s44, treated transfers of rights as secondary contracts under s45 (with connected-persons consideration rules applying), and applied s75A to disregard a series of scheme transactions and substitute a notional land transaction. The decision records the right to apply for permission to appeal within 56 days.

Prisma Recruitment Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 291 (TC) 14 March 2023 Prisma supplied 13 workers to BGM who deployed them on RBS projects; HMRC determined PAYE/NIC liability and assessed VAT surcharges. The Tribunal held HMRC had made an appealable Regulation 80 determination, Prisma made a timely Schedule 1AB TMA repayment claim and was entitled to repayment, and the contractual/factual client for s44 ITEPA was BGM (not RBS) so the workers provided excluded services meaning Prisma had no PAYE/Class 1 NICs obligation. Prisma's appeal against VAT default surcharges failed because insufficiency of funds was not a reasonable excuse.

Lalji Vekaria v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 288 (TC) 13 March 2023 This case concerned whether HMRC communications of March–April 2019 amounted to assessments or to valid appeals, whether a late appeal should be admitted, and whether a penalty notice was validly issued on 2 May 2019. The Tribunal held the March letter merely stated an intention to raise discovery assessments and was not an assessment; the April correspondence did not constitute a timely appeal against the assessments issued on 29 April 2019 and a late appeal was refused. On the balance of probabilities HMRC did not prove a penalty notice had been issued on 2 May 2019, so there was no appealable penalty decision.

Ocean Choice International Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 289 (TC) 13 March 2023 This appeal concerned whether Ocean Choice incurred customs debts when importing prawns under an end‑use authorisation before a CCG bank guarantee was in place, and whether HMRC should revoke or grant retroactive authorisation or remit the duty. The Tribunal held a customs debt arose for imports made before an adequate guarantee was provided, found no basis to revoke or to grant a retroactive authorisation, but granted remission under Article 120 in the interests of equity because the trader was in an exceptional situation without deception or obvious negligence. The last four imports after the guarantee operated did not give rise to a customs debt.

Asset House Piccadilly Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 279 (TC) 10 March 2023 This case concerns two applications by Asset House Piccadilly Ltd to bar HMRC from pursuing two tax appeals on the ground that HMRC officers based in England conducted the "conduct of litigation" in breach of the Legal Services Act 2007 (LSA). The First-tier Tribunal held that a pre‑LSA exemption in paragraph 4(2) applies because Tribunal procedure rules and enabling legislation permitted non‑legally qualified representatives to conduct steps in FTT proceedings immediately before the LSA appointed day, and therefore no LSA breach arose. The Tribunal also rejected an abuse of process argument, finding no unfairness or risk to the administration of justice and refusing the applications to bar HMRC.

Putney Power Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 292 (TC) 10 March 2023 This case concerns case-management applications in five linked appeals about whether companies issuing EIS shares had begun the qualifying trade within two years of issue. The appellants sought a Rule 18 lead-case direction identifying Putney as determinative of common issues; the Tribunal refused, finding the factual matrices were not sufficiently clearly common, and instead granted HMRC’s Rule 5 proposal that only Putney and Piston proceed while the other three appeals are stayed. Procedural directions were given and permission to appeal was reserved.

Christopher Byrne v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 293 (TC) 9 March 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC Closure Notices and best-judgment amendments to the appellant's self-assessment returns for 2016/17–2018/19, based on EMR sales records for his scrap metal/vehicle-dealing business. HMRC applied an expected net profit rate to EMR turnover and issued amendments; the appellant produced no supporting business records and did not attend the hearing. The First-tier Tribunal held the enquiries and Closure Notices were valid, upheld HMRC’s amendments as best-judgment assessments based on the only available documentary evidence, and dismissed the appeal.

Darryn Lyons v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 294 (TC) 9 March 2023 This appeal concerned whether Mr Darryn Lyons ceased to be UK tax resident before 6 April 2012 so that disposals in 2012/13 would not attract UK capital gains tax. The First-tier Tribunal applied the pre-SRT multifactorial common-law test to extensive factual evidence and found that, despite substantial steps towards relocating to Australia, Mr Lyons had not substantially loosened his UK ties by 6 April 2012 and therefore remained UK resident for part of 2012/13. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed HMRC’s CGT assessment of £1,087,413.68.

Engim Cenkci v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 270 (TC) 9 March 2023 This case concerned an application to admit a late appeal against HMRC discovery and penalty assessments issued in 2020. The appellant's agent asserted a letter of appeal was posted on 27 July 2020, but the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that no such posting occurred and that the appellant failed to explain lengthy delay. Applying the relevant three-stage test, the Tribunal refused permission to admit the late appeal.

Ezy Solutions Ltd (In Liquidation) Milo Corporation Ltd (In Liquidation) v His Majesty's Revenue & Customs 9 March 2023 This case concerned HMRC's application to prove circa £50m of VAT loss by reliance on a MUC schedule and sampling 50 underlying transactions without having served the underlying documents to the appellants. The Tribunal refused the sampling application as premature, concluding the appellants must first be provided the underlying evidence so they can judge representativeness and meet the case against them. The Tribunal granted limited permission to amend grounds to plead assessments were not to best judgment unless HMRC objected within seven days, and directed parties to agree further directions.

Ezy Solutions Ltd (in liquidation) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2024] UKFTT 299 (TC) 9 March 2023 This case concerns HMRC's proposal to prove a large VAT loss by sampling a subset of transactions from a VAT MUC schedule without first disclosing the underlying documents. The First-tier Tribunal found the sampling application premature and refused it because the Appellants had not been given the underlying evidence necessary to assess whether a sample would be representative. The Tribunal ordered HMRC to serve the underlying evidence and directed the parties to file agreed case-management directions within 28 days, and granted a limited amendment to the Appellants' grounds unless HMRC objected within 7 days.

Rizwan Butt v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 295 (TC) 9 March 2023 This appeal concerned whether Mr Rizwan Butt should be permitted to bring an out‑of‑time appeal against a company‑officer liability penalty for Trade Lynx after a 327‑day delay. The First-tier Tribunal refused to admit the Trade Lynx appeal as the delay was serious and the explanation—seeking information from HMRC—did not justify missing the statutory time limit, but it did admit two separate Quantum London appeals which were either in time or involved a much shorter delay.

Universal Flooring (Contractors) Limited & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 282 (TC) 9 March 2023 This case concerned civil VAT evasion penalties issued to Universal Flooring (Contractors) Ltd and its director, Mark Mackley, arising from failure to file VAT returns (2010–2016) and payment of centrally estimated assessments that understated actual VAT by £371,739. The tribunal found the director credible and responsible for VAT affairs but concluded, on the balance of probabilities, that he was careless/reckless rather than dishonest and therefore HMRC had not proved evasion attributable to him or the company. The appeals were allowed and the penalties/section 61 liability were not sustained.

Karl Blake v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 284 (TC) 8 March 2023 This case concerned civil evasion penalties issued to Mr Blake after excess cigarettes and hand-rolled tobacco bought in Muscat were seized at Manchester. The Tribunal found Mr Blake was not dishonest in respect of the goods he personally held (he had been stopped in the baggage area before entering the green channel), although his wife was found to have imported her share dishonestly. Because HMRC issued the penalty to Mr Blake and failed to prove he himself engaged in dishonest conduct, the penalties were not sustained and the appeal was allowed.

Lorraine Hayes v The Welsh Revenue Authority [2023] UKFTT 280 (TC) 8 March 2023 This appeal challenged a Welsh Revenue Authority closure notice that treated a May 2021 joint purchase by Mrs Hayes and her daughter as subject to the higher residential rates of Land Transaction Tax (LTT). The Tribunal found the facts undisputed, applied Schedule 5 to the LTTA 2017 and related provisions, and held the transaction met the conditions for higher rates because Mrs Hayes already had a major interest in another dwelling; the appeal was dismissed and the closure notice affirmed.

Luca Delivery Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 278 (TC) 8 March 2023 Luca Delivery Ltd appealed HMRC assessments reclaiming Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS) payments made in respect of an employee, Ms Beatriz Sartor, who was paid from December 2019 but was not included on RTI returns until June 2020. The Tribunal found SJPR Accountants had failed to notify the employee to HMRC but held that the statutory CJRS eligibility requirement—that the employee be included on an RTI return by the relevant CJRS day—was strict and could not be remedied retrospectively. Permission for a late appeal was granted but the appeal was refused; HMRC's assessments were upheld subject to a minor reduction, leaving a confirmed repayment of £4,789.35.

Natco Foods Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 274 (TC) 8 March 2023 This case concerned the customs classification of imported pappadum made mainly from urid bean flour and whether they fell under CN subheading 2005 51 00 (preparations of shelled beans) or 2005 59 00 ("beans — other"). The First-tier Tribunal held the pappadum are preparations of shelled beans and correctly classifiable under 2005 51 00, directing recalculation of the C18 at the lower duty rate the Tribunal found (14.10%). The Tribunal did not need to decide Natco's legitimate expectation argument.

Nicholas Henderson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 281 (TC) 8 March 2023 This appeal concerned whether Mr Henderson’s execution-only share dealings (c.194 disposals over 2015/16–2017/18, modest funds employed and about 1–2 hours’ work a day) amounted to a trade such that trade loss relief could be claimed. The Tribunal found the overall factual picture — number/frequency of transactions, limited organisation, lack of systematic commercial planning and the way losses were treated — consistent with management of a personal investment portfolio rather than trading. The appeal was dismissed and the trade loss claims were refused.

Allegion (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 273 (TC) 7 March 2023 Allegion appealed HMRC's refusal of a retrospective VAT bad debt relief (BDR) claim covering supplies from 1 April 1989 to 19 March 1997. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof that historic bad debts arose, that BDR had not already been claimed by a group member, and that the amount could be reasonably estimated, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal preferred contemporaneous documents (including HMRC Schedules indicating prior BDR/factoring) and gave little weight to long‑dated witness recollection. No detailed quantification of any entitlement was reached.

The Young Driver Training Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 271 (TC) 7 March 2023 The Young Driver Training Ltd appealed HMRC assessments arguing its pre‑booked supervised "driving experiences" for 4–17 year olds were admissions to an attraction and thus eligible for the temporary reduced VAT rate under Group 16 Schedule 7A VATA. The Tribunal found the Experiences were a package—vehicle use, one‑to‑one tuition and supervision—rather than a mere "right of admission," and held they were not sufficiently similar to listed Group 16 attractions; the fiscal neutrality argument also failed. The appeal was dismissed and the varied assessments upheld.

Thomas Merlin Ash v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 272 (TC) 7 March 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC’s recovery assessment for two SEISS grants totalling £14,070 which HMRC say Mr Ash was not entitled to receive. The Tribunal found HMRC had validly and timely raised an assessment under Schedule 16 FA 2020 para 9, accepted HMRC’s evidence, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to overturn a valid tax assessment on public-law grounds such as legitimate expectation. The assessment therefore stands.

Robert Robson v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 226 (TC) 2 March 2023 The case concerns two s29 TMA discovery assessments issued after repayments were made following returns submitted via an agent services account. The Tribunal accepted the taxpayer's evidence that he did not authorise the agent to submit self-assessment returns or EIS claims and found HMRC had made a discovery but failed to show the returns were made on the taxpayer's behalf or that the taxpayer acted carelessly. The appeal was allowed and the assessments were not upheld.

Phu Hung Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 224 (TC) 1 March 2023 Phu Hung Limited appealed HMRC’s decision setting a VAT registration effective date earlier than the appellant sought. HMRC applied to strike out the appeal under Tribunal Rule 8(3)(c) as having no reasonable prospect of success, but the First-tier Tribunal refused to strike out, finding HMRC had not shown on the balance of probabilities that the appellant lacked a realistic prospect of success. The Tribunal directed HMRC to file their Statement of Case within 28 days and declined to conduct a mini-trial at the strike-out stage.

Muller UK & Ireland Group LLP & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 221 (TC) 22 February 2023 This case concerned whether intangible assets transferred into a UK LLP in 2013 fell within the Part 8 intangible regime when profits are computed “as if a UK resident company carried on the trade” under s.1259 CTA. The Tribunal held the statutory fiction must be given the ownership attributes necessary to apply Part 8 and s.835, so the corporate members were “related parties” of the notional company and the assets did not enter Part 8; alternatively, FA 2016 amendments meant debits accruing on/after 25 November 2015 were excluded. Appeals were dismissed.

Refinitiv UK Holdings Limited & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 222 (TC) 22 February 2023 Refinitiv UK Holdings Ltd and Thomson Reuters applied under Regulation 5(5) to resist HMRC Schedule 36 notices seeking Project Vista documents. The tribunal held the disputed documents were not protected by litigation privilege because they mainly concerned implementation/structuring, but were, on balance, protected by legal advice privilege as part of a continuum of confidential lawyer–client communications to senior decision‑makers. The application succeeded and disclosure to HMRC was not required.

Fareham College v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 214 (TC) 21 February 2023 Fareham College appealed HMRC's refusal to repay VAT charged on services supplied to the public by its student-run training restaurant, salons and performing arts centre (07/11–04/15), arguing those supplies were exempt as closely related to education. The Tribunal held Item 4 Group 6 Schedule 9 should be read to incorporate the Article 134(b) exclusion and, applying an objective “basic purpose” test, found the training restaurant supplies remained exempt but was not satisfied that the salon or performing arts supplies were not aimed at obtaining additional income in competition with commercial enterprises.

Hillhead Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 215 (TC) 21 February 2023 Hillhead Ltd and Hillhead Plant Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal of input VAT deductions, challenged on grounds that their purchases were connected to suppliers’ fraudulent VAT evasion and that they knew or should have known of that connection. The Tribunal found there was a VAT loss caused by fraudulent evasion by suppliers (Citiflyte, Hy‑Mac, Countrywide), that the appellants’ transactions were connected to that fraud, and that Mr Doyle (and thus the companies) should have known — and more likely did know — so the appeals were dismissed and the input tax denials upheld.

Rashpal Singh Jabble v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 213 (TC) 17 February 2023 This appeal concerned whether the appellant was personally liable under Schedule 24 FA 2007 for deliberate inaccuracies in Drinks Enterprises Ltd's VAT returns relating to 123 supplies of alcohol alleged to be connected to MTIC-style fraudulent VAT losses. The Tribunal allowed the appeal only in respect of three chains (84–86 supplied directly by Beer Bhai) and dismissed it for the remainder, finding DEL (via the appellant) knew that at least 120 of the transactions were connected to fraudulent tax losses and that the inaccuracies were deliberate and attributable to the appellant, with the payable amount reduced to exclude chains 84–86.

Jonathan Hitchins & Ors. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 127 (TC) 16 February 2023 This case concerns three brothers who applied under s28 TMA for directions that HMRC issue closure notices following enquiries into a £40m dividend and related offshore structures. The Tribunal found HMRC had misinterpreted shareholder records, that the Settlement had appointed the funds to others and there was no evidence the applicants received undisclosed benefits, and that HMRC's outstanding enquiries were speculative. The Tribunal directed HMRC to issue closure notices within six weeks.

DSV Air & Sea Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 129 (TC) 14 February 2023 This appeal concerned whether DSV, an import agent, could be made jointly and severally liable under Regulation 12 for excise duty unpaid by GWY on imports of Shaoxing cooking wine. The Tribunal found the product was dutiable as made wine, the assessments against GWY were valid and timely, the importations were irregular, and that DSV was “involved” in those irregular importations; DSV was therefore held jointly and severally liable. DSV’s appeal was dismissed.

Brijesh Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 128 (TC) 13 February 2023 This case concerns Mr Patel's application for costs after HMRC withdrew two excise duty assessments and his appeal was allowed. The Tribunal held he was entitled in principle to reasonable costs on the standard basis but disallowed or reduced items it found unreasonable and required further particularisation of his claimed schedule. The Tribunal directed Mr Patel to file a compliant, detailed costs schedule before quantum is finally assessed.

DHL Air Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 123 (TC) 13 February 2023 DHL Air appealed HMRC’s refusal to grant retrospective end-use authorisation and related customs demands after seven aircraft were imported under an incorrect customs procedure code, producing a c.£3.01m liability. The Tribunal found HMRC acted unreasonably by failing to give substantive consideration to DHL’s proposal (limiting authorisation to aircraft for 12 months) which could have provided the “necessary assurance” under Article 211.3(b), ordered HMRC to reconsider, and decided on the present facts that the £3.01m debt arose under Article 79.1 and was not extinguished by Article 124.1(h) or relieved by Article 120.1. The first appeal was allowed in part (remittal for reconsideration); the second and third appeals were dismissed on the present facts unless HMRC changes its position on review.

Omolade Netufo v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 121 (TC) 10 February 2023 This case concerns two appeals by Mrs Netufo against HMRC refusals to restore beer seized in September 2018 and March 2019. The Tribunal dismissed the March 2019 appeal, accepting the statutory deeming that the beer was held for wholesaling without AWRS and finding HMRC's refusal reasonable. The Tribunal set aside the November 2021 review decision refusing restoration of the September 2018 seizure because the reviewer failed to consider the amount of under-declared duty and remitted that decision for fresh review by a different officer.

Paradise Wildlife Park Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 122 (TC) 10 February 2023 This appeal concerned whether construction work at Paradise Wildlife Park (lion enclosure and World of Dinosaurs) was zero-rated for VAT. The tribunal found that the charitable park (ZSH) carried on a business by operating and charging admission, that the works were intended at least partly for that business (so not solely for non-business charitable purposes), and that the outdoor dinosaur walk is not a "building". The appeal was dismissed and zero-rating did not apply.

Godavari Consultancy Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 120 (TC) 7 February 2023 Godavari Consultancy Services Ltd appealed a 15% VAT default surcharge of £946.34 for period 10/21, disputing whether payment was made by the due date (7 December 2021). The Tribunal found HMRC's ledger showed the payment was credited on 8 December 2021, held there was no reasonable excuse for late payment, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the surcharge.

Onuchika Eleonu v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 109 (TC) 7 February 2023 This appeal concerned penalties under Schedule 55 for late filing a 2019–20 self‑assessment return. The tribunal found no documentary evidence the appellant filed the return and rejected claimed defences (domestic violence, ignorance, PAYE status, and being abroad) as not amounting to a reasonable excuse. The tribunal upheld penalties totalling £1,300 and dismissed the appeal.

CBD Flower Shop Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 107 (TC) 3 February 2023 This appeal concerns CBD Flower Shop Ltd’s challenge to HMRC VAT assessments and HMRC’s late application to amend its statement of case to add an illegality defence that some CBD supplies involved controlled parts of the cannabis plant. The Tribunal found the illegality point had more than a fanciful prospect of success but refused HMRC’s amendment because it was late, HMRC had not obtained timely specialist advice, and the proposed amendment would unfairly prejudice the appellant. The Tribunal declined to award costs against HMRC and gave directions to progress the appeal.

Colm Brendan Malone v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 98 (TC) 2 February 2023 This appeal concerned two personal liability notices issued to Mr Malone after his company was assessed for deliberate and concealed VAT and corporation tax inaccuracies. The Tribunal found the company’s inaccuracies were deliberate and concealed and, because Mr Malone was the sole director controlling compliance and had concealed records, those deliberate inaccuracies were attributable to him. The Tribunal confirmed the PLNs in reduced amounts: VAT £45,507.84 and corporation tax £8,522.25.

Diamond Bodycraft Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 100 (TC) 2 February 2023 Diamond Bodycraft Ltd appealed a VAT default surcharge after paying VAT two days late for period 10/21, blaming a malfunctioning online banking security fob and COVID-related business/health issues. The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse because alternative payment methods or contacting HMRC were available and a short delay was not exceptional, and it dismissed the appeal, upholding the surcharge.

Hussain Ali Omar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 101 (TC) 2 February 2023 This appeal concerned civil evasion penalties imposed on Mr Hussain Ali Omar for importing c.12kg of shisha tobacco and 800 cigarettes through the green channel at Heathrow on 15 September 2019. HMRC assessed penalties based on duty evaded of £2,272, reduced by 40% for disclosure and co-operation to £1,363. The Tribunal found HMRC proved on the balance of probabilities that Mr Omar acted dishonestly in failing to declare the goods and upheld the 40% mitigation, dismissing the appeal.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Hamilton Bradbury Ltd (in liquidation) [2023] UKFTT 99 (TC) 2 February 2023 HMRC applied under FA 2004 s314A that Hamilton Bradbury Ltd’s arrangements, which routed most worker earnings through employment, loan contracts and standardised invoicing so that workers received net pay while larger amounts were labelled loans, were notifiable. The Tribunal held the arrangements met the 2006 Regulations’ prescribed descriptions of a “premium fee” (reg 8) and “standardised tax products” (reg 10), found the arrangements’ main benefit was reduction of income tax and NICs, and held HBL to be a promoter. The Tribunal ordered the arrangements to be notifiable for income tax and NICs; the decision is an excluded decision with no right of appeal.

Benjamin Cohen v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 90 (TC) 30 January 2023 This appeal concerned whether HMRC validly opened an enquiry into an SDLT return and whether Luna Court was a replacement for Mr Cohen’s only or main residence under Condition D. The Tribunal found HMRC’s enquiry was validly opened within time by service at the taxpayer’s last notified address and that Sherrard Road was occupied only temporarily, not as his only or main residence. Consequently Condition D was not satisfied and the higher rate SDLT charge was upheld; the appeal was dismissed.

Kuldip Bachra v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 91 (TC) 30 January 2023 This appeal concerns a PLN issued to Mrs Bachra arising from VAT input tax denied to her company OWD for purchases found to be connected to MTIC fraud. The Tribunal held the remaining transactions were connected to fraudulent VAT losses and that OWD should have known of that connection, but found OWD did not actually know and therefore the inaccuracies were not deliberate; because paragraph 19 requires a deliberate inaccuracy attributable to an officer, the PLN against Mrs Bachra was not sustained and her appeal was allowed. HMRC had validly withdrawn 43 deals and the Tribunal applied HMRC’s disclosed reduction when considering the quantum.

The Executors of the Estate of Peter John Linington & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 89 (TC) 30 January 2023 This case concerned whether Peter Linington’s reversionary interest in the Marshall Trust was “excluded property” under s48 IHT and whether its assignment to the Kent Trust constituted a transfer of value under s3 IHT. The tribunal found the reversionary interest was acquired for consideration (when the nomination became irrevocable as part of a single packaged transaction) and thus was not excluded property, and that its assignment to the Kent Trust was a transfer of value whose market worth was effectively the trust fund (with a small discount); the appellants’ appeal was dismissed. Parties were directed to agree or return to the tribunal to quantify amounts.

Daniel Dunne v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 88 (TC) 26 January 2023 Mr Dunne sought a VAT refund under s35 for works described as a single‑storey rear extension which became physically detached and occupied as a bungalow. HMRC refused on the basis the works were an extension, not construction of a new dwelling; the Tribunal found the planning permission, even after an informal amendment removing a corridor, remained permission for an extension and not for a new dwelling, and dismissed the appeal.

David Beales v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 386 (TC) 26 January 2023 This case concerns HMRC's application to lift a stay of Mr Beales' appeal about three tax assessments for 2015/16–2017/18 in light of Finance Act 2022 s.97 amendments. The Tribunal examined Mr Beales' pre-30 June 2021 correspondence (notably his 3 May 2020 letter) and found he had not by that date raised the specific issue that any assessment was invalid because it did not relate to discovery of income which ought to have been assessed. Consequently the three assessments were held to be "relevant protected assessments" and the stay was lifted.

Adrian McKiernan t/a AMK Fuels v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 80 (TC) 25 January 2023 This appeal concerned Mr McKiernan's claim for repayment of VAT (£61,106) for 01/16–12/19 on coal sold at the reduced 5% rate. The Tribunal found there were no contemporaneous records for the relevant periods and later handwritten records and oral evidence were insufficiently clear or reliable to show qualifying reduced-rate sales. The appeal was dismissed and the standard-rate VAT returns were upheld.

Pavan Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 79 (TC) 25 January 2023 Pavan Trading Ltd appealed HMRC assessments denying VAT zero‑rating on 13 exports to the US. The Tribunal held that the trader satisfied the paragraph 6.5 export evidence requirements because it had the relevant documents in its possession within the three‑month period and the combined documentary record supported zero‑rating. The appeal was allowed and HMRC’s assessments were not upheld.

Tajinder Singh Pawar v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 81 (TC) 25 January 2023 This is an application for permission to notify a late appeal against a personal liability notice (PLN) dated 5 October 2017 making the appellant personally liable for £874,238 of penalties imposed on First Stop Wholesale Ltd. The appellant gave notice of appeal some 38 months after the statutory 30‑day appeal period and relied principally on advisers and alleged provisional agreement with HMRC to explain the delay. Applying the Denton/Martland three‑stage test the Tribunal found the delay unjustified, that the adviser‑reliance did not constitute a good reason in the absence of cogent evidence, refused permission for the late appeal and dismissed the substantive appeal.

Stephen Garwood v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 75 (TC) 23 January 2023 Professor Stephen Garwood, as executor for his late wife, appealed HMRC's refusal to repay £2,236 of voluntary Class 3 national insurance contributions paid in March 2019 after advice from a DWP pensions helpline. The Tribunal held the DWP advisor's omissions did not amount to an "error" under Regulation 52 and found no mistake by Mrs Garwood in making the payments; she had intended to increase her state pension and briefly received that benefit. The appeal was dismissed.

WJE Limited & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 74 (TC) 23 January 2023 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments to VAT and corporation tax following a compliance check of WJE Ltd and admissions by its director KLC that purchases and sales had been undeclared and records manipulated. The First-tier Tribunal accepted HMRC's use of third‑party supplier data (Total Asia), reasonable sampling and extrapolation as satisfying the statutory "best judgment" standard, upheld the application of the presumption of continuity to extend uplifted profits, and confirmed penalties and officer‑liability notices against KLC. The appeal was dismissed and revised assessment amounts were confirmed.

S & L Barnes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 42 (TC) 20 January 2023 This appeal concerned whether IR35 applied to services provided by Mr Stuart Barnes through his personal service company to Sky between 2013 and 2019. The Tribunal found the intermediary provisions of ITEPA s49 applied (client, worker, intermediary) and that the hypothetical contract satisfied mutuality of obligation and sufficient control, but on a multi‑factorial assessment of the contractual terms and factual matrix the engagement would not have been a contract of employment. The HMRC determinations were set aside and the appeal allowed.

Andrew Lillicrap v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 72 (TC) 19 January 2023 Mr Lillicrap appealed HMRC's decision that national insurance contributions were due on his car allowance; his appeal had been stayed pending related cases but an interlocutory decision of 1 November 2021 lifted that stay. The Tribunal decided that interlocutory decisions of this type should be published, lifted the stay because the related decisions would not materially assist and further delay was inexpedient, and appended the interlocutory Decision; the appeal later settled and was withdrawn.

Danielle Katie Sexton & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 73 (TC) 19 January 2023 The taxpayers bought a leasehold flat whose lease included a gated, chargeable right to use a communal garden. The tribunal held that that right was an easement appurtenant to the flat and thus formed part of the "main subject‑matter" of the SDLT transaction and, in any event, fell within s116(1)(c) as a right subsisting for the benefit of the building, so the transaction was entirely residential. HMRC’s closure notice refusing the claimed SDLT refund was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Gain Capital Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 61 (TC) 19 January 2023 This case concerned whether 2014 deeds of gift repaying loans to two former employees (Cooke and Hambury) were "earnings" from their earlier employments for PAYE purposes. The Tribunal held the gifts implemented a 2011 deal that itself arose from deferred share awards granted as rewards for service, and therefore the full gift amounts were taxable as employment income. The appellant's appeal was dismissed and HMRC's PAYE determinations were confirmed.

Martin Clarke West v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 63 (TC) 19 January 2023 Mr Martin Clarke West sought permission to bring a series of late appeals against HMRC assessments, closure notices and penalties issued between 2017 and 2018, with delays exceeding 1,100 days. The First-tier Tribunal found the delays very serious, rejected reliance on various advisers and on Mr West’s health/caring responsibilities as good reasons for delay, regarded the proposed appeals as weak (notably the Sch 36 penalties), and refused permission to make late appeals.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Third Party [2023] UKFTT 71 (TC) 19 January 2023 HMRC applied for Tribunal approval of a Schedule 36 third‑party information notice to a Northern Ireland firm of solicitors seeking conveyancing files and related documents for two properties, alleging the taxpayer had undeclared UK tax liabilities. The third party and taxpayer objected on grounds of legal professional privilege, Article 8 ECHR, data‑protection, confidentiality and undue burden. The Tribunal found HMRC had reasonable grounds, the request was reasonably required and proportionate, excluded privileged material and approved an amended notice (Property 1 removed) with a production deadline and a procedure for privilege disputes.

Nicolas Burley v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 59 (TC) 17 January 2023 This appeal concerned whether HMRC validly assessed and notified multiple late filing/payment penalties totalling £282,397 for 2015/16 and 2016/17 to Mr Burley, who asserted he never received the notices. The Tribunal accepted HMRC’s documentary Self‑Assessment and Communisis dispatch records as authentic and sufficiently detailed to show production, correct addressing, pre‑payment and posting of the notices. It rejected Mr Burley’s non‑receipt evidence as not credible and held he failed to rebut the presumption of service. The appeal was dismissed except for one tranche of daily penalties (£900) which HMRC did not pursue.

Ince Gordon Dadds LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 44 (TC) 16 January 2023 This case concerns whether Work Group plc (WG) could recover about £73,238 of input VAT incurred on services relating to a reverse takeover of Culver and a £20m fundraising (Project Kappa). The First-tier Tribunal held WG intended to join Culver's VAT group and that fundraising was a purpose of the takeover, but found the funds were used to acquire businesses that were intended to be customers of Culver, so the VAT on the fundraising costs was not recoverable. The appeal against HMRC's disallowance was dismissed and a late appeal was admitted.

Singh & Kainth t/a Western News v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 43 (TC) 16 January 2023 This case concerns an application to admit a late appeal against a VAT best-judgement assessment of £58,310 issued 10 February 2017, where the appellant did not notify an appeal until 22 September 2021. The Tribunal found the nearly two-and-a-half-year delay to be very substantial, rejected the appellant's explanations (reliance on their agent and perceived ongoing dialogue with HMRC), and refused permission for the late appeal despite an arguable case that the assessment might be excessive. The decision records the appellant's right to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Dr Syed Akhlaq Rizvi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 124 (TC) 13 January 2023 Dr Rizvi claimed EIS tax relief for 2015–2017 without holding required EIS3 certificates and accepts he was not entitled to those claims. The tribunal found Dr Rizvi himself was not careless because he reasonably relied on his long‑standing accountants, but that McKenzie Knight (who prepared and promoted the investments and prepared the returns) acted on his behalf and were careless in failing to verify EIS3s. HMRC’s discovery assessments within six years were therefore lawful; the appeal was dismissed and the three assessments confirmed.

I.A. Barnett & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 62 (TC) 13 January 2023 This case concerned appeals by two taxpayers against HMRC closure notices and penalties arising from redress payments received under the FCA IRHP redress scheme. The Tribunal held that the basic redress element was a refund of amounts that would not have been paid but for the mis‑sold swaps and therefore taxable as income, and it upheld penalties for lack of reasonable care because the taxpayers failed to inform their accountants of the redress. The appeals were refused.

Maqsood Hussain t/a Nisa Local v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 40 (TC) 13 January 2023 This case concerns Maqsood Hussain (t/a Nisa Local) seeking to reinstate a withdrawn 2018 VAT appeal and to bring very late appeals against penalty decisions and a January 2016 review decision. The Tribunal held that VATA s85 applied because the withdrawal was notified to the Tribunal and HMRC was informed, so the First Appeal was treated as determined and could not be reinstated; alternatively, a 2½‑year delay in seeking reinstatement was in any event too long. Permission to bring the late appeals against the penalties and the January 2016 decision was also refused for very long delays and no good reason (agent failings did not suffice).

Foreign National v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 475 (TC) 12 January 2023 FN appealed against an HMRC Schedule 36 information notice (varied on review) seeking documents about UK property transactions, bank records and rental income for 2014/15–2016/17. The Tribunal held the notice was validly issued despite a jeopardy amendment, and that the outstanding requested items were reasonably required to check FN’s tax position. The appeal was dismissed and the varied notice was confirmed.

Paul Joseph Bryan t/a Bryan & Co Solicitors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 33 (TC) 12 January 2023 This case concerns Mr Paul Bryan’s application for a direction that HMRC close enquiries into his 2016–17 and 2017–18 self-assessment returns. HMRC had issued Schedule 36 notices seeking statutory records and other documents; the tribunal found HMRC had reasonable grounds to continue both enquiries, that many requested documents were statutory records (not subject to refusal), and that HMRC’s requests were not oppressive or disproportionate. The application for a closure direction was refused.

Reliable Shipping Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 45 (TC) 12 January 2023 This case concerned two Finance Act 1994 assessments totalling £320,531.50 and the appellant’s applications that HMRC should have issued a hardship certificate or accepted lesser/no security. The Tribunal held FA94 (not VATA) governs the security/hardship test, that the appellant bore the burden of proving hardship with credible contemporaneous evidence, and that the appellant failed to do so. The hardship applications were dismissed and the assessments remain subject to payment or acceptable security.

ATN Marketing Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 30 (TC) 11 January 2023 The First-tier Tribunal dismissed ATN Marketing Limited’s appeal against two VAT assessments (04/12 £112,537; 04/15 £52,227.79) and upheld related Schedule 24 penalties (£63,020 and £55,246). The Tribunal found HMRC’s officer made best-judgment assessments after considering available material and attempts to obtain documents, and it found ATN’s conduct amounted to deliberate inaccuracy (including duplicate/unsupported input tax claims and claiming while payments were unpaid). The quantum of the assessments and the penalty amounts were not reduced and the appeals were refused.

Mareel Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 283 (TC) 11 January 2023 Mareel Limited appealed a HMRC 10% default surcharge of £64,119.53 for VAT period 06/21, arguing a prior surcharge liability notice (09/20) was not served, that it had a reasonable excuse for late payment, and that the surcharge was disproportionate. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities the 09/20 notice was received by Mareel’s accountants, that Mareel did not establish a reasonable excuse (cashflow and Covid-related assertions lacked documentary support), and that the proportionality challenge failed. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge upheld.

B&M Retail Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 34 (TC) 10 January 2023 B&M appealed a Schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty imposed by HMRC in relation to excise duty on alcohol supplied by a third party (Ruby Trading). The Tribunal held the penalty valid, reduced it slightly to correct an agreed arithmetic error, and dismissed B&M’s claims that it had a reasonable excuse, special circumstances, that its disclosure was unprompted, or that the penalty was disproportionate. The Tribunal preserved B&M’s right to seek permission to appeal.

Nicholas John Hall & Anor (as Trustees of the Carolina Raboni Estate) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 32 (TC) 10 January 2023 This appeal concerned whether Lazzaro Boggia had a beneficial interest in possession (IIP) in a house under his mother's will at the time of his death, given the estate's insufficient liquid assets to meet inheritance tax and other liabilities. The First-tier Tribunal held that because a creditor could compel satisfaction of liabilities and the only realistic way to meet them was sale of the house, Boggia could not enforce a right to occupy the property and therefore did not have an IIP. The Tribunal allowed the appellants' challenge to HMRC's determination and permitted them to seek refund of IHT paid.

Isle of Wight NHS Trust & Ors. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 23 (TC) 9 January 2023 This case concerned whether HMRC's written Reply to representations about the VAT treatment of locum doctors amounted to an appealable decision and whether various NHS Trust appellants had standing to bring appeals. The Tribunal held the Reply, read with the prior correspondence, expressed a concluded view on VAT chargeability and was therefore appealable under s83 VATA, and that the Trusts (for strike-out purposes) had standing; HMRC's strike-out applications were dismissed and the appeals proceed.

Nikola Polakova v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 31 (TC) 9 January 2023 This appeal arose after HMRC seized 29,800 cigarettes from Ms Polakova, assessed excise duty of £8,533 and imposed a Schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty of £3,285. The Tribunal admitted a late appeal, proceeded in the appellant's absence, struck out the appeal against the Assessment for lack of jurisdiction because the seizure was not challenged in the magistrates' court, and upheld the Penalty, finding deliberate conduct and that inability to pay did not reduce the statutory penalty.

Edyta Sowa (trading as Nefaria Trans) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 87 (TC) 6 January 2023 This case concerns two appeals by carrier Edyta Sowa (trading as Nefaria Trans) against HMRC refusals to restore vehicles, a trailer and oil seized at Dover in June and August 2015. The First-tier Tribunal was asked to decide whether HMRC’s remade review decisions (after an earlier direction to re‑review) were decisions no reasonable decision‑maker could have reached. The Tribunal found the remade decisions properly took into account relevant factors (including laboratory results, repeated deliveries for the same customer and lack of material due diligence) and dismissed both appeals.

Teresa McGowan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 28 (TC) 6 January 2023 This appeal concerned a civil excise and customs evasion penalty imposed after Ms McGowan arrived from Egypt carrying 400 cigarettes and 16 kg hand-rolling tobacco and passed through the green channel. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that she knew the allowances and intended to evade duty, that her conduct was dishonest by ordinary standards, upheld HMRC’s mitigation reductions, and dismissed the appeal, leaving the £2,015 penalty intact.

Wired Orthodontics Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 17 (TC) 6 January 2023 Wired Orthodontics facilitated a scheme where the company bought gold for two director-employees who immediately sold it, creating directors' loan credits while the company undertook to pay equivalent sums into an employee benefit trust. The Tribunal held the directors received money or money's worth of £300,000 (taxable "earnings" under s62 ITEPA), the company was liable for PAYE/NICs and s222 ITEPA applied, and the company’s £300,000 payments (and the £40,500 fee) were not deductible as wholly and exclusively for the trade. Applications to amend grounds or admit further evidence were refused.

Edward Phelan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 29 (TC) 5 January 2023 Mr Phelan appealed HMRC's refusal to repay income tax and National Insurance contributions deducted while he attended a one-day-per-week university course during 2012–13. The Tribunal found the payments were earnings not exempt from NICs, that his 12 March 2017 letter did not constitute a valid in‑time quantified income tax claim within the four‑year limit, and that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to determine the WATS concession (and in any event the concession did not apply to him). The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's decisions were upheld.

Golden Grove Trust v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 27 (TC) 5 January 2023 The First-tier Tribunal refused Golden Grove Trust permission to make late appeals against a VAT assessment and a decision disallowing input tax, finding delays of about 2 years 4 months and 1 year 3 months respectively. The Tribunal held there was no good reason for the delays, attributing primary responsibility to the Trust's agent (Mr Warne) and shared blame by the Trust from 27 May 2021, and refused permission after balancing prejudice and weak merits. The decision records the right to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

Hare Wines Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 25 (TC) 3 January 2023 HMRC assessed Hare Wines Limited (HWL) for unpaid excise duty after finding 61 cases of OJ Beer and concluding a relied-on invoice from Shakthi was forged. The First-tier Tribunal found the Disputed Invoice not genuine, held HWL liable for the duty assessment, and upheld a Schedule 41 wrongdoing penalty of £957 for deliberate and concealed conduct. HWL’s appeals were dismissed.

Hoopla Animation Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 24 (TC) 3 January 2023 This appeal concerned whether Hoopla Animation Ltd’s share issues in 2018 qualified for EIS relief. The Tribunal found the company met the Risk-to-Capital Condition and that it had created the relevant intangible assets, but concluded the share issues were part of disqualifying arrangements under Condition A because substantial funds raised were paid to or for the benefit of a relevant party, so EIS relief was refused. The appeal was dismissed.

Mark Goodall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 18 (TC) 29 December 2022 This appeal concerned a Schedule 41 penalty for failing to notify liability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2019–20 after HMRC sent a December 2019 "nudge" letter. The tribunal accepted HMRC likely posted the letter but found, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant did not receive it and so was not put on notice; his ignorance of the obligation, given he was a PAYE-only employee outside self‑assessment, constituted a reasonable excuse. The appeal was allowed and the 2019–20 penalty discharged.

Bicester Property Interiors Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 13 (TC) 21 December 2022 Bicester Property Interiors Ltd (BPIL) appealed VAT surcharge liabilities for multiple periods, arguing COVID-19-related disruptions gave it a "reasonable excuse" for late VAT payments. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that COVID-19 interruptions were the dominant cause of repeated cashflow shortfalls, that BPIL remedied defaults without unreasonable delay, and allowed the appeal, quashing the surcharges.

Manipay Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 16 (TC) 21 December 2022 This appeal concerned whether Mainpay Ltd’s subsistence reimbursements to temporary workers were deductible for PAYE/NIC purposes and whether HMRC’s late assessments were time-barred. The Tribunal found the 2010 contract created separate employments for each assignment and, under s 339(5) ITEPA, the workplaces were permanent so subsistence was non-deductible as ordinary commuting. The Tribunal also held Mainpay could not rely on round‑sum/benchmark rates without an ITEPA dispensation or evidence of actual expense, and that HMRC’s late determinations were within time because Mainpay acted carelessly; the appeal was dismissed.

Matthew Kensall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 11 (TC) 21 December 2022 This appeal concerned discovery assessments of £2,295 and Schedule 41 penalties of £459 issued by HMRC to Mr Kensall. The Tribunal found HMRC had misdirected him and that he had a reasonable excuse for failing to notify, so the penalty appeal was allowed and the penalties cancelled. However, because Mr Kensall had not appealed the discovery assessments to HMRC before the statutory cutoff, the Finance Act 2022 retrospective protection applied and the Tribunal refused the appeal against the assessments. The Tribunal invited HMRC to consider care and management relief.

TalkTalk Telecom Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 12 (TC) 21 December 2022 This case concerned whether TalkTalk’s “Speedy Payment Discount” (SPD) reduced the VAT‑able consideration for all customers under Sch 6 para 4(1) VATA for Jan–Apr 2014. The Tribunal held that, while para 4(1) should be read as deeming consideration reduced by an offered prompt‑payment discount whether or not it is taken up, on the facts the SPD did not amount to contractual terms allowing a prompt‑payment discount and so para 4(1) did not apply. TalkTalk’s appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s assessment (about £10.6m) was upheld.

Vortex Enterprises Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 211 (TC) 21 December 2022 This appeal concerned denial of VAT input tax claims of £872,918 for 16 purchases in 06/16 and 09/16 on grounds they were connected with MTIC fraud. The First-tier Tribunal found each challenged purchase was connected with fraudulent evasion and that the Appellant (through its principal Mr Browne) knew, or alternatively should have known, of that connection. The appeal was dismissed and the assessments upheld.

2 Green Smile Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 15 (TC) 20 December 2022 This appeal concerned when a dental practice and its goodwill passed from a partnership to a newly formed company and whether an oral deal shortly before 1 December 2014 was effective. The Tribunal found there was an oral agreement to transfer the whole business, but that agreement was unenforceable as to the premises under the Law of Property (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1989 because it was an indivisible transaction including land. On the facts, however, the company stepped into the partnership’s business as a de facto transfer on 1 December 2014, so the company was entitled to amortise the goodwill and income from that date; HMRC’s later 23 October 2015 date was rejected and the appeals were allowed.

Everyday Wholesale Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 60 (TC) 20 December 2022 Everyday Wholesale Ltd appealed HMRC's denial of input VAT for periods 04/13–04/16. The Tribunal found there had been a VAT loss caused by fraudulent evasion traceable through the identified deal chains, that Everyday's transactions were connected to that fraud, and that the director Mr Johal (and thus the company) knew or should have known; the appeal was dismissed with a remaining in-time quantum of £236,896.43. HMRC conceded some earlier assessments as out of time.

Everyday Wholesale Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 78 (TC) 20 December 2022 Everyday Wholesale Ltd appealed HMRC's denial of input VAT for periods 04/13–04/16 on the basis that the input tax related to VAT fraud and that the company knew or ought to have known. The Tribunal found there was a VAT loss caused by fraudulent evasion within the deal chains, that the appellant's transactions were connected to that fraud, and that the company's director was not a credible witness so his knowledge was attributed to the company. The appeal was dismissed and the input VAT claims were denied.

Nilebond Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 14 (TC) 19 December 2022 This appeal concerned a scheme sanction charge imposed after Nilebond’s pension scheme made a £37,500 loan to its corporate sponsoring employer, secured by a floating charge that was not registered at Companies House within the statutory period. The Tribunal held that where the borrower is a company a loan is only an "authorised employer loan" if the related charge is registered in accordance with the Companies Act (or any court-extended period) while the loan is extant, and that retrospective registration after repayment did not cure the defect. Nilebond’s appeal was dismissed and the £15,000 scheme sanction charge upheld.

Jason McCaffrey v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 10 (TC) 14 December 2022 This appeal concerned £2,000 of Schedule 55 penalties for late self‑assessment returns for 2018–19 and 2019–20. The Tribunal found HMRC had issued digital notices and sent message alerts to the appellant's provided email, and that the appellant had no reasonable excuse or special circumstances for the late filings. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties confirmed.

London Drying Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 9 (TC) 14 December 2022 This appeal concerned whether London Drying Ltd was entitled to reclaim VAT on an Audi Q5 and whether a careless inaccuracy penalty was properly imposed. The Tribunal found that, at acquisition, the company intended to make the car available for private use (so input tax was disallowed) and upheld HMRC's careless inaccuracy penalty, but agreed to suspend that penalty for 12 months on three specified compliance conditions.

William Kealey & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 108 (TC) 14 December 2022 This appeal concerned £8,300 of late-filing CIS penalties for a father-and-son groundworks partnership who relied on a now-deceased accountant. The tribunal found they had not exercised reasonable care, produced no witness evidence, and caused repeated late filings despite receiving multiple penalty notices. No special circumstances justified reduction, and the penalties were held not disproportionate; the appeal was dismissed.

Veho Limited v The Director of Border Revenue [2022] UKFTT 473 (TC) 13 December 2022 Veho Ltd imported alcoholic goods seized by Border Force on 23 October 2020 and sought a review of the restoration decision out of time. The Tribunal applied a relief‑from‑sanctions/extension‑of‑time approach (Martland/Denton framework) rather than a sole reasonable‑excuse test, found the delay was short and not seriously prejudicial, and ordered Border Force to carry out the late review. Parties were notified of appeal rights.

MPTL Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 472 (TC) 12 December 2022 MPTL sought permission to file a 59‑day late appeal against HMRC IR35 determinations for Mr Lynagh. The Tribunal applied the Martland/Denton test, found no good reason for the delay, treated the failures of MPTL's professional advisers as MPTL's failures, and concluded MPTL's prospects of success were not good. Permission to file the late appeal was refused.

Pye Motors Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 471 (TC) 12 December 2022 Pye Motors claimed statutory interest under s.78 VATA on VAT repaid for manufacturer demonstrator bonuses for 1 Aug 1974–31 Mar 1986, alleging HMRC error in treating bonuses as consideration, a margin-scheme error, and delay caused by a three‑year cap. The FTT found HMRC had made general representations about bonus treatment but with a proviso (application to payments in the "line of supply"); on the balance of the evidence Pye Motors was not shown to have been misled and did not prove HMRC error or causation for the margin‑scheme issue, nor prior knowledge sufficient to show delay from the capping rule. The Tribunal dismissed the appellant’s entitlement to statutory interest.

Opus Labour Services (In Liquidation) & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 470 (TC) 9 December 2022 This case concerns a late application by the appellants to opt out of the complex-category costs regime after they missed the 28-day opt-out deadline for four joined appeals. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Denton test, found delays of 116 and 63 days serious, accepted the delay was due to the representatives' oversight but held that was not a good reason, and refused relief so the late opt-outs were denied. The Tribunal noted parties may apply for permission to appeal.

Shivsagar Enterprises Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 22 (TC) 9 December 2022 This appeal concerned a £400 late filing penalty under Schedule 55 FA 2009 for an SDIL quarterly return that was filed four days late. The appellant relied on an alleged HMRC online service malfunction as a reasonable excuse but failed to produce promised evidence and did not remedy any short-lived problem without unreasonable delay. The First-tier Tribunal found the statutory penalty applied, rejected the reasonable-excuse defence and, substituting for HMRC, found no special circumstances to reduce the penalty; the £400 penalty was upheld.

Douglas Lambourne v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 466 (TC) 8 December 2022 This case concerns Mr Lambourne’s challenge to HMRC’s refusal to repay sums under the Disguised Remuneration Voluntary Repayment Scheme after a prior settlement. The First‑Tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction because neither Finance Act 2020 nor the Scheme confers a statutory right of appeal to the Tribunal, and struck the appeal out. The Tribunal noted judicial review as the alternative remedy and urged HMRC to consider the facts before issuing termination notices under the Scheme.

Jeffrey John Ashfield v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 465 (TC) 8 December 2022 This case concerns Mr Ashfield's application to reinstate an appeal that was automatically struck out for failing to comply with an unless order requiring service of witness statements. The Tribunal found the default serious, rejected Mr Ashfield's explanations as not credible, applied the Denton test and concluded that factors favouring reinstatement did not outweigh the need to enforce directions and ensure efficient litigation. The application to reinstate was dismissed.

Epaminondas Embiricos v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 464 (TC) 7 December 2022 This case concerns interlocutory applications in Mr Embiricos’ appeal against a March 2021 discovery assessment (based on alleged acquisition of UK domicile of choice) and related information‑notice disputes, specifically whether the domicile issue should be tried as a preliminary issue and whether HMRC should have an extension to file their Statement of Case. The Tribunal refused to order a preliminary hearing on domicile, finding the Wrottesley factors against such an order (risk of delay, increased cost, realistic prospect of appeal, and lack of succinctness) outweighed factors in favour. The Tribunal granted HMRC an extension to file their Statement of Case by 2 May 2023 and directed the parties to agree and file case directions within six weeks.

James Anderson v PriceWaterhouseCoopers & Anor [2022] UKFTT 457 (TC) 6 December 2022 This was a preliminary First-tier Tribunal hearing on whether Mr Anderson's late referral under s 12(ABZB) TMA could be admitted and whether it was in any event excluded as in substance about the amount (before sharing) of partnership profits. The Tribunal held it had no power to extend the statutory 12‑month referral period, that the partnership return was "delivered" when filed with HMRC so the referral was out of time, and that the dispute was substantively about the amount of partnership profits and therefore excluded by ABZB(4). The referral was dismissed.

Matthew Evans v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 458 (TC) 6 December 2022 Mr Evans appealed a closure notice amending his 2006/07 return after HMRC disallowed a capital loss and treated a BVI loan waiver as taxable; he argued HMRC should have recovered any over‑repayment by assessment under s30 TMA rather than by amendment under s28 TMA. The First-tier Tribunal held the closure notice correctly stated HMRC's conclusions and the amendments required, that a minor drafting reference to a prior overpayment did not invalidate the notice, and that the amendments were ones HMRC could make under s28. The Tribunal struck out the appeal under FTT Rule 8(3)(c) as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Chrisovalandis Georgiou & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 455 (TC) 5 December 2022 This was an appeal by Georgiou & Co Ltd and Mr Georgiou against HMRC VAT and corporation tax assessments, penalties and a Personal Liability Notice. The Tribunal found HMRC's VAT assessment was not made to the best of its judgement because of sampling, arithmetic and credibility flaws, and therefore set aside the VAT assessment, related penalties and the PLN. The Tribunal also quashed the discovery corporation tax assessments, the 2017 determination and the loans-to-participators charge because they rested on the flawed VAT figures and were not properly established.

James Stuart Baillie v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 456 (TC) 5 December 2022 This appeal concerned whether PAYE shown as a director’s bonus entry in Baillies Limited’s accounts had in fact been paid to HMRC, and whether HMRC validly issued closure notices and discovery assessments and correctly exercised powers under the PAYE Regulations (notably Regs 72, 80 and 185). The Tribunal found no evidence of actual payment of the PAYE (an accounting entry alone was insufficient), upheld HMRC’s discovery assessments subject to agreed adjustments (removal of incorrect rental income and allowing remaining partnership losses to offset later partnership earnings), and concluded HMRC lawfully declined to issue a Regulation 72 direction or to treat the PAYE as an admitted liquidation debt. The appeals were dismissed.

Philip Gutmanovich Ravicher v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 454 (TC) 5 December 2022 This appeal concerned the appellant's application to postpone payment of £241,388 assessed by HMRC following COP8 jeopardy amendments for 2016/17. The appellant relied on a capital/loan and agency payment narrative to claim remittances were non-taxable, but the Tribunal found contemporaneous bank records, KYC and treaty materials indicated trading receipts and substantial taxable remittances. The Tribunal refused postponement, finding the appellant had not shown reasonable grounds to believe he was overcharged.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Dark Blue Umbrella Limited [2022] UKFTT 453 (TC) 5 December 2022 HMRC applied under s.314A FA 2004 for an order treating an "annuity arrangement scheme" operated by Dark Blue Umbrella Ltd as a notifiable arrangement. The Tribunal found the arrangements were standardised, designed to secure a tax advantage, and that the company acted as a promoter, and therefore made an order declaring the arrangements notifiable. The respondent had been barred from the proceedings and the application succeeded.

Peter Woodstock Harris v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 447 (TC) 2 December 2022 This case concerned Mr Peter Woodstock Harris’s application for costs after HMRC issued a partial closure notice which was later withdrawn and the appeal allowed. HMRC sought to strike out the costs claim as the supporting schedule was deficient for summary assessment. The Tribunal refused strike-out, found the schedule inadequate for summary assessment but, exercising its Rule 7 discretion, awarded costs on the standard basis and directed detailed assessment if parties could not agree; indemnity costs were refused.

S & B Distribution Limited v The Director of Border Revenue [2022] UKFTT 448 (TC) 2 December 2022 This appeal concerned the seizure of 7,200 litres of wine imported under an Admission for Relief from Customs Duty (ARC) and the subsequent refusal to restore it. The Tribunal held it was reasonable for the reviewing officer to rely on information from the specialised Fraud Team, but that the officer was not reasonably entitled to infer the importer’s complicity in misuse of the ARC on the material before him. The Tribunal ordered that the review decision cease to have effect and directed a fresh review.

Niall Murphy v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 702 (TC) 1 December 2022 This appeal concerned a £23,560 excise duty assessment and a £9,895 wrongdoing penalty imposed after Border Force seized a trailer driven by Mr Murphy containing 27 pallets of beer. The First-tier Tribunal accepted HMRC's evidence, found Mr Murphy an unreliable witness and the holder of the goods, and held he was liable to the excise duty and properly subject to a deliberate wrongdoing penalty; the appeal was dismissed and both amounts confirmed in full.

Huilan Ge v Director of Border Revenue [2022] UKFTT 440 (TC) 29 November 2022 This appeal challenges DBR's refusal to stamp VAT Retail Export Scheme paperwork after the appellant exported goods. The Tribunal dismissed DBR's strike-out application, holding there is at least one arguable basis under section 83(1)(b) VATA for the appeal and directing the appellant to provide further particulars. The Tribunal concluded it has jurisdiction to consider whether supplies should be treated as zero-rated under directly effective EU law even where administrative stamping was refused, but it cannot order DBR to stamp the documents.

Gek Siu Ng v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 441 (TC) 28 November 2022 This appeal concerned whether HMRC should have allowed an extension under Regulation 50 for late voluntary Class 3 NICs for 1996–97 to 2001–02. The Tribunal found Ms Ng had been informed of the unpaid years and deadline, understood the basic NIC regime, and that her long continued inaction showed a lack of due care and diligence; she did not discharge the evidential burden to show her ignorance or error was not caused by lack of care. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's refusal upheld.

David Oakes v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 428 (TC) 24 November 2022 This appeal concerned a costs application by Mr Oakes under TCEA and Rule 10 after HMRC applied to admit late evidence (an email exchange) following oral testimony at a permission-to-appeal hearing. The tribunal found HMRC had a reasonable explanation for seeking to admit the late evidence, that the evidence was largely irrelevant to the permission-to-appeal decision, dismissed HMRC's late-evidence application, and refused Mr Oakes's costs claim of £1,698.60.

Fulfillment Logisitics UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 131 (TC) 23 November 2022 This appeal concerned whether the appellant (Fulfillment Logistics UK Ltd) could recover input VAT and avoid output VAT/penalties in relation to services provided to Contactlenses Ltd (CLL). The Tribunal found CLL and its owners perpetrated VAT fraud, that the appellant and Mr Lambert knew or ought to have known of the fraud, that CLL had a UK fixed establishment at the fulfilment units, and accordingly upheld HMRC’s denial of input tax, assessment of output tax and penalty; the appellant’s appeals were dismissed.

Mateusz Ziomek v The Director of Border Revenue [2022] UKFTT 444 (TC) 22 November 2022 This appeal challenged a Border Force review which reduced restoration of a seized vehicle carrying 114,800 cigarettes to £8,841.44. The Tribunal found the CMR consignment note was non‑compliant (missing consignee and clear description), the carrier and driver failed to carry out basic checks and were blameworthy, and Officer Boote’s review decision was one a reasonable reviewer could have reached. The appeal was dismissed.

Apollinaire Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 432 (TC) 21 November 2022 This appeal concerned whether transfers of stock and business from Snow Whyte Ltd to Apollinaire Ltd in late 2015 amounted to a transfer of a going concern (TOGC) restricting Apollinaire's input tax recovery, and whether Mr Hashmi, as sole director, was personally liable for a deliberate inaccuracy leading to a Personal Liability Notice (PLN). The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities there was a TOGC, upheld HMRC's best-judgment VAT assessments (including disallowance of certain input tax and misuse of the retail scheme), and accepted that the deliberate inaccuracy was attributable to Mr Hashmi, so the PLN was rightly issued. All appeals were dismissed.

Professor David Barrett v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 423 (TC) 21 November 2022 This case concerns Professor Barrett's application for permission to notify a late appeal against a HMRC discovery assessment for 2014/15, filed about four months late. The Tribunal applied the Martland test, found the delay serious and unjustified, rejected the appellant's reliance on his solicitor's assurances as a good reason for delay, and refused permission to admit the late appeal.

Ashtons Legal (A Partnership) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 422 (TC) 15 November 2022 This appeal concerned whether VAT on two leases, entered in the name of a dormant nominee company, was recoverable by Ashtons Legal (the trading partnership) which negotiated, occupied and paid for the premises. The Tribunal applied an economic‑reality approach and held the partnership was the effective recipient of the taxable supply despite the leases naming the Company, so the partnership could recover the input tax. The appeal was allowed.

A v Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 421 (TC) 14 November 2022 Mrs A appealed HMRC's closure notice that treated a £1,055,000 payment under a 11 May 2018 Settlement Agreement as taxable. The First-tier Tribunal held the Agreement contained restrictive undertakings given in connection with employment and that the Compensation Sum was paid in respect of those undertakings, so taxable under ITEPA s.225(3); alternatively, the payment was also connected with termination and taxable under Chapter 3 above the £30,000 exemption. The appeal was dismissed.

The Squa.Re Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 51 (TC) 14 November 2022 The Squa.re Ltd appealed HMRC assessments and refusal of an error correction asserting that the UK Tour Operators' Margin Scheme (TOMS) permits an overall negative margin and a VAT repayment. The Tribunal held that while individual supplies may show negative margins that can be included in the annual/global TOMS calculation to reduce positive margins, the UK scheme does not permit an overall negative taxable amount or an entitlement to repayment (the result is capped at nil), and dismissed the appeal.

Thomas Cruise v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 41 (TC) 14 November 2022 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 FA 2009 penalties for late filing of a 2019/20 self-assessment return by Mr Thomas Cruise. HMRC relied on electronic notices and email alerts sent to his verified Personal Tax Account; the Tribunal found those notices were duly issued, that Mr Cruise had no reasonable excuse for late filing, and that HMRC’s refusal to reduce penalties for special circumstances was not irrational. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the penalties.

David Oakes v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 413 (TC) 10 November 2022 This case concerns an application for permission to bring late appeals against multiple VAT and income tax notices where HMRC issued a bankruptcy petition in mid-2018. The tribunal held that service of the appealable notices was likely effective and that the bankruptcy petition put the appellant/agents on notice from 23 July 2018, so the long delay to September 2020 was not a good reason for lateness; failures by the appellant’s former agents and their employees were attributed to the appellant. Permission to appeal late was refused for the income tax matters and for VAT matters apparent from the petition, and granted only for those VAT matters not set out in the petition, with directions to identify which matters those are.

Kattrak International Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 427 (TC) 10 November 2022 Kattrak appealed two VAT default surcharges for 06/21 and 09/21, arguing confusion over a cancelled direct debit and staff/illness issues amounted to a reasonable excuse for late payment. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC records showed the direct debit was cancelled by the payer or bank, that the company was on notice from prior surcharge history and could have resolved the issue with its bank, and that COVID/staffing did not prevent payment. The appeal was dismissed and both surcharges upheld.

Michael Olaboyeji Akinbami v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 426 (TC) 9 November 2022 This case concerns an out‑of‑time appeal by Mr Akinbami against penalties under Schedules 55 and 56 FA 2009 for several tax years. The Tribunal refused permission to bring the appeal out of time because the Notice of Appeal was received years late with no justification or application for an extension, and upheld the remaining penalties that HMRC continued to pursue (other than certain daily and late‑payment penalties which HMRC did not pursue or reduced to nil).

Clive Kingdon & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 407 (TC) 7 November 2022 This appeal concerned when the Rota Rod partnership’s business transferred to Rota Environmental Services Ltd and whether HMRC’s discovery amendments reallocating profit to the partnership for 2005/06 (with related partner assessments and penalties) were valid. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the transfer occurred at the end of March/1 April 2005, not 2 August 2005, allowed the appeals against the 2005/06 partnership amendments, and held that the appellants were not negligent so penalties did not properly attach. The Tribunal also found that a 27 November 2019 amendment was a valid discovery amendment and that earlier HMRC correspondence did not amount to an undertaking preventing assessment.

Timothy Watts v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 408 (TC) 7 November 2022 This appeal concerned Mr Watts' claim under para 14A Sch 13 FA 1996 arising from a Grant Thornton gilt‑strip scheme and HMRC's closure notice disallowing the claimed loss. The First‑tier Tribunal found the arranged transactions were implemented and should be treated as a single commercial composite transaction, and held that "amount payable on the transfer" is a commercial concept that, on the facts, includes the full consideration paid by Investec; it recalculated the allowable para 14A loss at £6,300 and allowed the appeal in part.

York Burton Lane Club and Institute Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 406 (TC) 7 November 2022 This case concerns five linked applications for permission under s.84(6) VATA to bring appeals against protective VAT assessments out of time, arising from the Rank litigation about VAT on gaming machines. The appellants appealed some 8–9 years late; the tribunal applied a three-stage approach (length of delay; reasons for delay; all circumstances including prejudice and merits) and found the delays were serious and unjustified. Although the appellants’ substantive cases appeared strong and HMRC would suffer limited prejudice, the tribunal refused permission to bring the late appeals. The tribunal also rejected the appellants’ argument that HMRC’s differing treatment of taxpayers with existing appeals compared to those without was unlawfully discriminatory.

Elizabeth Green v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 405 (TC) 4 November 2022 Mrs Green sought permission to file appeals against four HMRC income tax assessments issued 17 January 2020 but notified those appeals about ten months late. The First-tier Tribunal applied the Denton/Martland three-stage approach, found the delay serious and significant, rejected reliance on her accountant as a good reason for the delay, and refused permission to admit the late appeals.

Charlene Hughes v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 400 (TC) 3 November 2022 This appeal challenged an HMRC assessment of £213,332 excise duty on c.950,000 cigarettes seized from a shed at the Appellant’s property and an application for adjournment on medical grounds. The Tribunal refused the adjournment, found the Appellant was physically holding the cigarettes at the duty point under Regulation 10(1), found no earlier duty point established, and dismissed the appeal.

Neal Futcher v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 401 (TC) 3 November 2022 This appeal concerned a Schedule 55 penalty of £51,324.23 for filing the 2015/16 self-assessment return 927 days late. The tribunal found Mr Futcher deliberately withheld information by consciously deciding not to file by 31 January 2017, had no reasonable excuse at the filing date, and although HMRC’s special-circumstances consideration was procedurally flawed, no special circumstances justified reducing the penalty. The appeal was dismissed.

Patrick Dowds v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 402 (TC) 3 November 2022 This First-tier Tribunal considered HMRC assessments and penalties against Mr Patrick Dowds for income tax, PAYE/NIC, VAT and related penalties following an HMRC investigation and a COP9 Disclosure Report. The Tribunal found systematic, deliberate inaccuracies and concealment amounting to dishonest evasion, applied the extended 20‑year assessment period for VAT, and upheld the assessments and penalties while declining to increase them. The appeal was dismissed in full.

Marisa Lincoln v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 26 (TC) 2 November 2022 The executrix of Mr Martin Falzon sought permission to file an appeal more than 11 months out of time against an HMRC determination that he was UK domiciled at death. The tribunal applied the three-stage Martland approach, found the delay serious, rejected the appellants' elective reasons for not appealing (distrust of HMRC/tribunal and cost concerns), concluded the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success and HMRC would be prejudiced, and refused permission to admit the late appeal.

Peter Gould v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 431 (TC) 1 November 2022 This appeal concerned whether an interim dividend paid to one shareholder on 5 April 2016 made the identical dividend declared for another shareholder of the same class "due and payable" from that earlier date for tax purposes. The Tribunal found the brothers had agreed (objectively evidenced) to defer payment to the appellant into the next tax year and that, applying Duomatic/waiver principles, the appellant could not have enforced payment on 5 April 2016. The appellant's appeal was allowed: the dividend was not due and payable until it was actually paid on 16 December 2016.

Gap Group Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 397 (TC) 28 October 2022 This case concerns HMRC's application to sist (stay) Gap Group Limited's VAT appeal pending determination of a separate FTT appeal (Generator Power) on whether plant hire and supplied fuel form a single composite supply or separate supplies. The Tribunal refused to sist, finding the Generator decision would not provide sufficient material assistance given factual and procedural differences and that a stay would cause prejudice and delay to Gap Group. The appeal will proceed to case management and substantive determination.

Mariusz Soda v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 396 (TC) 25 October 2022 This case concerns seizure of 5,980 Marlborough Gold cigarettes at Luton Airport, HMRC assessments of excise duty (£1,910) and a wrongdoing penalty (£735), and the appellant's appeals. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to re-open factual issues about condemnation where the claimant failed to use the Schedule 3 notice-of-claim/condemnation procedure and struck out the duty appeal (alternatively finding it had no reasonable prospect of success). The Tribunal dismissed the penalty appeal, finding HMRC proved deliberate or reckless behaviour and that the appellant's language difficulties and other circumstances did not amount to "special circumstances" to reduce the penalty.

Rahul Manubhai Patel v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 399 (TC) 24 October 2022 This appeal concerned whether Mr Patel was dishonest under the civil penalty regime after being stopped at Manchester Airport with 13.35kg of hand-rolling tobacco and passing through the Green Channel without declaring it. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that he knew of import limits and that his tobacco exceeded them, and that his conduct was dishonest. The appeal was dismissed and penalties totalling £1,467 (after reduction) were confirmed.

Casa Di Vini Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 398 (TC) 21 October 2022 Casa Di Vini Ltd appealed an excise duty assessment of £43,691 and a Schedule 41 excise wrongdoing penalty of £18,350 arising from an inward diversion fraud where a reused Administrative Reference Code (ARC) was used. The First-tier Tribunal found Casa di Vini owned the seized consignment, had arranged carriage under an ARC already used two days earlier, acted deliberately, and dismissed the appeal, upholding both assessment and penalty.

James Averdick & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 374 (TC) 17 October 2022 The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appellants' appeal against HMRC Closure Notices upholding HMRC's treatment that the purchased property was residential for SDLT purposes. The key issue was whether a public lane (Deerlands Lane) crossing the land formed part of the "garden or grounds" of the dwelling under s116 FA2003; the Tribunal found it did. The Tribunal held that the lane's public access, third‑party use and the appellants' maintenance obligations did not negate its character as residential grounds.

Aizio Associates Ltd & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 414 (TC) 13 October 2022 The Tribunal refused Aizio Associates Ltd & Ors' application for disclosure from HMRC of seven categories of documents, finding the requests were largely irrelevant or disproportionate to the appeals against VAT penalty and personal liability notices. The Tribunal concluded HMRC had provided copies of documents taken on a visit and, on the balance of probabilities, returned the originals; it also held it had no jurisdiction to order HMRC to comply with FOI/ICO processes. The application for broad unredacted material and SAR-style requests was refused and redactions in HMRC Caseflow were not ordered disclosed.

Betindex Limited (in liquidation) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 372 (TC) 12 October 2022 Betindex applied eight weeks late to opt out of the First-tier Tribunal costs regime after its appeal allocation required opt-out requests within 28 days. The Tribunal found the delay was significant and the appellant's explanation (an oversight) was not a good reason, but nevertheless allowed the late request because the delay had no material effect on timetable or conduct and caused no prejudice to HMRC. The Tribunal therefore permitted the opt-out and excluded the appeal from potential liability for costs.

Newpier Charity Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 373 (TC) 12 October 2022 Newpier Charity Ltd applied for a direction requiring HMRC to issue a closure notice for its 2016–17 corporation tax return after an HMRC enquiry into payments totalling £821,000. The Tribunal found that, on the evidence (including two witness statements) that requested historic documents are unavailable, HMRC no longer had reasonable grounds to continue the enquiry and directed HMRC to issue a closure notice within four weeks. The Tribunal recorded that HMRC may close on the basis of the evidence they hold and that the charity may appeal any closure notice issued.

C4C Investments Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 367 (TC) 11 October 2022 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.

Mypay Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 371 (TC) 11 October 2022 This case concerns four case-management applications arising from an FTT Direction of 18 February 2022 that had permitted the appellant to amend its grounds of appeal to include ground (1): "Mypay does not employ the Workers". HMRC applied to set aside that part of the Direction and to strike out ground (1) on the basis that they had been materially misled by omission and ambushed by a fundamental change of stance; the Tribunal set aside Direction 1 insofar as it applied to ground (1) and ordered the appellant to make a formal permission application before relying on that ground. Preliminary strike-out applications were refused as premature and a timetable was directed for a permission process and further case management.

Robert Frederick Binfield & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 364 (TC) 6 October 2022 This appeal arose from a dispute over VAT treatment of the 2014 sale of the Arklow estate by LP Investment Properties LLP to Anthology, with the appellants (members of the dissolved LLP) arguing the sale was a transfer of a going concern (TOGC). The First-tier Tribunal accepted jurisdiction but struck out the appeal as an abuse of process because it amounted to a collateral attack on prior criminal findings against Mr Binfield and also held the TOGC case had no reasonable prospect of success. HMRC’s strike-out applications were granted and the Tribunal recorded rights to seek permission to appeal.

Irene Clariscia Gill v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 368 (TC) 5 October 2022 This FTT decision concerns Ms Irene Gill’s appeals against self-assessments, statutory interest and Schedule 55 late filing penalties for tax years 2008–09 to 2016–17. The tribunal struck out appeals relating to tax and statutory interest for 2008–09 to 2011–12 and 2013–14 (including a closure notice) as an abuse of process or for lack of jurisdiction, and refused to admit late appeals against late filing penalties for 2014–15 to 2016–17. The tribunal cited a prior 2015 FTT determination, absence of an appealable decision in respect of Ms Gill’s own 2013–14 self-assessment, lack of jurisdiction to challenge statutory interest, procedural failures and inordinate delay as reasons. Parties were given 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

Sintra Global Inc & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 365 (TC) 5 October 2022 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments and penalties against Sintra Global Inc (Global) and Parul Malde arising from alleged inward diversion of alcohol into the UK. The Tribunal found that Sintra SA had diverted and supplied alcohol in the UK and that Mr Malde controlled SA, but did not find that Global had done so. The Tribunal allowed Global’s and Mr Malde’s appeals because HMRC’s assessments were materially flawed: the assessing officer failed to consider available material (notably bank statements), undermining the “best of their judgment” requirement.

Bouncylagoon Limited and other Appellants in the VAT Umbrella Appeals v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 361 (TC) 4 October 2022 This case records a BBC journalist's application for electronic copies of parties' skeleton arguments and the hearing bundle from a public case-management hearing in the VAT Umbrella litigation. The Tribunal ordered disclosure of the parties' skeleton arguments but refused disclosure of the full 1,423‑page hearing bundle. The decision applied a fact‑sensitive balancing process (Dring approach) considering whether disclosure would materially advance open justice, risks to third parties or the process, and proportionality/practicality. The journalist may apply for permission to appeal under rule 39 within 56 days.

White Feather Commercial Cleaning Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC & Anor [2022] UKFTT 358 (TC) 3 October 2022 This appeal concerned whether an employee, Ms Tyrrell, was genuinely incapable of work during a period in 2017 for which statutory sick pay (SSP) was claimed. The Tribunal found that consistent medical evidence, including an expert examination, established incapacity and that the employer produced no independent evidence to rebut HMRC’s decision. The appeal was dismissed and the employer remains liable for £2,177.93 SSP.

Kevin McCabe v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 356 (TC) 30 September 2022 Mr Kevin McCabe appealed HMRC closure notices for 2006‑07 and 2007‑08, arguing he had ceased to be UK resident after moving to Brussels on 4 April 2006 and/or by 5 April 2008, and alternatively that he was treaty‑resident in Belgium. The First‑tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities he remained UK resident throughout the Relevant Period and, under the UK‑Belgium DTC tie‑breaker, had permanent homes in both States but his centre of vital interests was in the UK, so he was treaty‑resident in the UK; the appeal was dismissed in principle and quantum reserved.

Viktor Mlekanov v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 357 (TC) 30 September 2022 This case concerns Mr Mlekanov’s appeals against an excise duty assessment and a 35% penalty after cigarettes were seized at Birmingham Airport as imported for a commercial purpose. The First-tier Tribunal struck out the appeal against the duty assessment because a deeming provision treated unchallenged forfeited goods as imported for commercial purposes, removing any realistic prospect of revisiting that factual issue. The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the penalty, finding Mr Mlekanov had a reasonable excuse (an honest mistaken belief, limited English and low means) and reduced the penalty to zero.

Cozy Pet Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 359 (TC) 29 September 2022 Cozy Pet appealed HMRC C18 demands alleging misclassification of imported cat trees/scratchers and metal playpens/panels. The Tribunal held the cat trees/scratchers fell within CN 6307 90 10 under Commission Implementing Regulation 350/2014 because the knitted plush covering conferred the essential character, and the metal panels were articles of iron or steel classifiable under chapter 73 (7326). The appeal was dismissed except that single-column scratchers, where sisal predominates, were reclassified to a 6.3% duty.

Kilo Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 351 (TC) 29 September 2022 Kilo Ltd imported citric acid declared as originating in Malaysia but OLAF and the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the goods actually originated in China and were therefore subject to EU anti‑dumping duty. Kilo’s reliance on certificates of origin and limited due diligence did not prevent imposition of the duty, and its claim for repayment under Article 119 of the Union Customs Code failed because it did not establish a competent‑authority error, inability reasonably to detect that error, or the required good faith/diligence. Both the anti‑dumping duty appeal and the Article 119 repayment appeal were dismissed.

R D Utilities Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 347 (TC) 26 September 2022 This FTT decision dealt with HMRC's request for disclosure beyond the standard Rule 27 regime and whether the appellant should provide further material from its witness, Anthony Dugdale. The Tribunal held that Rule 27 is the default disclosure regime and that any departure must be justified and proportionate under the overriding objective. It ordered a limited supplementary witness statement from Mr Dugdale addressing specified paragraphs of HMRC's request and required production of any non‑privileged documents within the appellant's control that fall within those limited points. The Tribunal refused HMRC's broader disclosure requests as disproportionate.

Alan and Diane McFarland v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 355 (TC) 23 September 2022 The McFarlands appealed HMRC VAT assessments; an unless order required sending hardship evidence to HMRC by 5pm on 9 March 2020. The Tribunal found the appellants breached the order because the first email went only to the Tribunal (not HMRC), but the breach was not serious and the delay in sending the material to HMRC later that day caused minimal prejudice. Balancing the length and reasons for delay and prejudice, the Tribunal granted both reinstatement of the appeal and permission for the reinstatement application to be brought out of time.

Lucky Technology Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 366 (TC) 22 September 2022 Lucky Technology bought physical Steam POSA vouchers from a DSG concession within Harrods. The tribunal held the vouchers were retailer vouchers (not single-purpose vouchers), Harrods acted as principal (not agent) when selling them, VAT was therefore chargeable and was paid by the appellant, and HMRC had erred in exercising its regulation 29(2) discretion by failing properly to consider alternative evidence. The appeal was allowed and not remitted, but the tribunal cautioned its findings rested on inadequate evidence.

Marcus Jays & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 420 (TC) 22 September 2022 This appeal concerned whether dividends declared by Questor Properties Ltd for years ending 2014–2016 which were credited to directors' "blocked" accounts under an undertaking to Lloyds gave rise to an enforceable right to payment and thus a charge to income tax. The First-tier Tribunal held those credited but deferred amounts did not create an enforceable debt on declaration and therefore were not taxable distributions; the discovery assessments and related penalties were set aside and the appeals allowed. The Tribunal added that, had the amounts been taxable, HMRC could have validly issued discovery assessments but failed to prove the necessary culpability for penalties.

Neoterick Uk Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 442 (TC) 22 September 2022 Neoterick UK Ltd appealed an HMRC VAT assessment under VATA s.73(1) for 01/14–07/17, contesting whether HMRC had made the assessment "to the best of [its] judgment". HMRC relied on two test purchases and two invigilations showing an average of 92% standard-rated sales and extrapolated that percentage across turnover; the Tribunal found HMRC acted honestly, had sufficient material for a judgment, and that the assessment fell within a reasonable range. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

Richard Buck v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 354 (TC) 22 September 2022 This case concerns an application by Richard Buck for permission to admit late appeals against five CIS Regulation 13 determinations (2005/06–2009/10) and two TMA penalty determinations. The First-tier Tribunal found very substantial delays (about five to over eight years), inadequate explanations for the delay (including unsupported reliance on an agent), and real prejudice to HMRC, and refused permission to admit the late appeals. The Tribunal also found the appeals had limited prospects of success. The decision refused the application to admit late appeals and notified rights to seek permission to appeal.

Fresh Consulting and Support Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 353 (TC) 21 September 2022 Fresh Consulting appealed an HMRC Information Notice seeking bank statements and other records relating to c.£73,000 of CJRS claims. The Tribunal heard the appeal in the appellant's absence, held that bank statements for 16 March–31 December 2020 are statutory records (so that part of the appeal was struck out for lack of jurisdiction), and dismissed the remainder of the appeal by confirming the Notice unamended and ordering full compliance within 30 days.

Innovative Bites Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 352 (TC) 21 September 2022 This appeal concerned whether "Mega Marshmallows" were "confectionery" for VAT purposes or instead zero-rated as food. The tribunal found, on a multifactorial factual assessment of the product, its packaging, marketing, retail placement and likely consumer use (notably promotion and habitual sale for roasting/s'mores), that the Product was not "confectionery" within Excepted Item No.2 Group 1 Schedule 8 VATA 1994. The appeal was allowed and the Product was treated as zero-rated.

Dominic Kiernander v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 337 (TC) 20 September 2022 The appellant sought permission to file an appeal out of time against HMRC following a statutory review dated 26 August 2020. The Tribunal found the notice lodged on 6 August 2021 was over seven months late, and rejected the reasons given (generic pandemic disruption by the agent, agent errors, and the appellant’s mental health) as insufficient to excuse the delay. Permission to appeal out of time was refused.

Sumangkaly Siva v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 344 (TC) 20 September 2022 The Tribunal considered HMRC's application to strike out Mrs Siva's appeal against amounts for PAYE and NICs shown on Full Payment Submissions (FPS) covering Feb 2018–5 Dec 2019. It held that an employer's FPS that records pay and tax deductions gives rise automatically to the payment obligation under the PAYE Regulations and, absent an HMRC determination, does not constitute a separate appealable decision. The appeal was struck out for lack of jurisdiction and the amounts shown on the submissions remain payable unless and until the returns are amended.

Katarzyna Kondrat-Wilk v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 342 (TC) 14 September 2022 This appeal concerned whether Dr Katarzyna Kondrat‑Wilk could deduct large “Other Business Expenses” claimed as contributions to a remuneration trust; HMRC applied to strike out the appeal for having no realistic prospect of success. The tribunal found there was no credible, contemporaneous evidence that the alleged trust contributions were paid, the appellant’s explanations were inconsistent and evolved, and further particulars or witness statements were unlikely to cure the evidential deficiency. The tribunal granted HMRC’s strike‑out application and struck out the appeal.

Marcin Daniel Cajdler v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 343 (TC) 14 September 2022 This case concerns HMRC's application to strike out Dr Marcin Cajdler's appeal against discovery assessments and penalties for large "Other Business Expenses" claimed via an alleged remuneration trust/PMC arrangement. The Tribunal found the appellant's case lacked credible contemporaneous documentary or bank evidence, and that his explanations had shifted over time, so there was no realistic prospect of proving expenditure was incurred. The Tribunal rejected that EU‑law arguments or late witness statements could cure the core evidential defects and granted HMRC's strike out application.

BMW Shipping Agents Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 335 (TC) 13 September 2022 BMW Shipping Agents Ltd submitted electronic C88 customs declarations for imports from China and later HMRC issued a post-clearance demand for import VAT after BMW accepted onward supply relief did not apply. The Tribunal determined the identity of the Declarant must be ascertained from the declaration itself read as a whole, found BMW was the Declarant (primarily because of Box 44 entries showing Y040GB and BMW’s VAT number), and dismissed BMW’s appeal upholding the VAT demand.

Hedge Fund Investment Management Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 340 (TC) 13 September 2022 This VAT appeal concerned whether Hedge Fund Investment Management Limited (HFIM) was carrying on an economic activity, or was an “intending trader”, during several VAT periods so as to recover input VAT, and whether claimed input VAT (notably legal fees) had a direct and immediate link to taxable supplies; HMRC also imposed a penalty for careless inaccurate returns. The Tribunal found HFIM was an intending trader throughout the relevant periods, allowed recovery of input VAT on certain Reed Smith legal invoices that could be directly linked to an identifiable taxable invoice, allowed HFIM’s appeal against the penalty, and remitted detailed attribution of other claimed inputs to the parties to agree (or to return to the Tribunal).

Emerchantpay Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 334 (TC) 9 September 2022 This appeal concerned whether supplies made by a Bulgarian group company (EMPO) to the UK trading company (EMPL) were VAT-exempt intermediary financial services and whether HMRC's assessments were time-barred. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that EMPO performed substantial operational activities (underwriting, due diligence, onboarding, matching merchants to acquirers, risk, treasury and IT) that amounted to financial intermediation and so the supplies were exempt under Schedule 9 Group 5 VATA. The tribunal did not decide the time-limit point and made no findings on whether HMRC’s assessments were issued out of time. The appeal was allowed and the assessments were effectively set aside on the exemption basis.

Lucy Anne Watt v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 329 (TC) 9 September 2022 This appeal concerned late filing penalties under Sch.55 for 2019/20. The tribunal found HMRC had sent the notice to file but that Ms Watt genuinely and objectively reasonably believed she had filed online and paid; contradictory HMRC communications and delay in informing her otherwise meant she had a reasonable excuse until HMRC's 2.8.21 letter, and she remedied the default promptly by filing a paper return. The appeal was allowed and the penalty discharged.

Olujinmi Laleye v The Commissioners For HMRC [2022] UKFTT 346 (TC) 9 September 2022 This appeal concerned combined Customs and Excise civil evasion penalties imposed after HMRC seized 37,000 cigarettes from Mr Laleye at Heathrow. The tribunal found that Mr Laleye acted dishonestly (rejecting his personal-use claim), upheld the penalties reduced to £7,311 (reflecting a 50% reduction already applied for disclosure and co‑operation), and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also held it could not—and was not persuaded it should—reduce the penalty further for inability to pay.

T. PA Accountancy Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 345 (TC) 9 September 2022 T. PA Accountancy Services Ltd appealed a 20% late filing penalty for a company tax return for accounting period ending 30.9.18; HMRC assessed the return as filed on 13.1.21, 836 days late, and imposed a penalty of £4,343.70. The appellant relied on a clerical or IRIS software error and said a submission had been made on 6.11.19, but the Tribunal found that submission related to APE 30.9.19, rejected the appellant's account as not credible, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty.

Majid and Miah Properties v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 327 (TC) 7 September 2022 This appeal concerned VAT assessments raised by HMRC against Majid & Miah Properties in respect of output tax on a lease to Mehfil (Preston) Ltd and multiple input tax disallowances. The Tribunal found the one‑year rent‑free period effective, no rent was paid and the lease terminated when Mehfil ceased trading, so most output VAT assessments were disallowed except for output tax of £2,166 for 02/17. The Tribunal allowed recovery of several specific input VAT items on the basis of alternative evidence but upheld numerous disallowances where invoices were in another name or pro forma; amended assessments were directed accordingly.

Samuel and Helen Moore t/a Moore Farms v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 411 (TC) 7 September 2022 This case is an application for permission to bring a five‑year late appeal against HMRC's 23 July 2013 cancellation of Moore Farms' Agricultural Flat Rate Scheme certificate. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the HMRC investigator did not tell the applicants the scheme was ending and that the applicants' misunderstanding contributed to about four to five years' delay. The tribunal applied the three‑stage Denton/Martland approach, found the delay and prejudice to HMRC outweighed the reasons for lateness (including later CJEU/UT developments), and refused permission to appeal. The applicants have 56 days to seek permission to appeal this tribunal decision.

Beadnall Copley Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 324 (TC) 5 September 2022 This case concerns an application to set aside a First-tier Tribunal decision on the basis that the Tribunal failed to consider paragraph 25 of Mr Firth's lodged opinion, which asserted that an interest in an asset is itself an asset under Part 8 CTA. The Tribunal held that an alleged failure to address an argument is a judicial error (error of law) rather than a "procedural irregularity" within Rule 38, and therefore set-aside under Rule 38 was not appropriate. The application to set aside the 13 June 2022 decision was refused; the parties were informed of the right to seek permission to appeal.

Yummy Yummy Takeaway Limited & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 326 (TC) 5 September 2022 HMRC issued discovery corporation tax and best‑judgment VAT assessments, associated penalties, and a personal liability notice against Yummy Yummy Takeaway Limited and its director Paul Donaldson for under‑recording cash sales. The Tribunal found material under‑recording on two unannounced visit nights, attributed the deliberate suppression of cash takings to the company and to PD, upheld the assessments and penalties but ordered minor recalculation of quantum (using card sales = 44%) and adjusted mitigation percentages. The personal liability notice against PD was confirmed.

Anthony Calcutt v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 313 (TC) 1 September 2022 HMRC opened an enquiry into the appellant’s 2014/15 return, found unexplained bank deposits and suppressed takings across 2010/11–2014/15, and raised s.29 discovery assessments for 2010/11–2013/14, deliberate-inaccuracy penalties for 2010/11–2014/15, and a best-of-judgment VAT assessment for 1 April 2011–31 July 2015. The Tribunal found the officer had discovered a significant loss of tax, that the discovery assessments were valid and timely, upheld the deliberate-penalty determinations (classified as “deliberate but not concealed” with a 60% reduction for quality of disclosure), and upheld the VAT-registration liability and output-based VAT assessment. The appellant’s inconsistent explanations and failure to produce credible records meant HMRC’s figures and inferences from bank records and invoices stood. The appeal was dismissed.

GC Field & Son Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 314 (TC) 1 September 2022 This appeal concerned a costs application under FTT Rule 10(1)(b) after HMRC issued discovery assessments and alleged taxpayers (and their promoter) had been negligent. The Tribunal found HMRC did make a discovery but failed to prove negligence because it led no evidential material beyond pleadings and public announcements. The Tribunal held HMRC acted unreasonably in pursuing the negligence case without evidence, awarded costs to the appellants, but fixed quantum at a nominal £1.

Raj Sehgal & Anor. v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 312 (TC) 31 August 2022 This appeal concerned whether arrangements that settled an indemnity arising on the sale of Visage shares amounted to a remittance under s.809 ITA 2007. The Tribunal found the Side Letter's conditional contractual rights were not "property" for s.809 purposes and, although a UK service (waiver/procurement of waiver of UK liabilities) was provided, neither any property nor that service "derived from" the chargeable gain. The appeal was allowed and HMRC's closure notices were not upheld on the remittance point.

Ruhal Islam v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 311 (TC) 30 August 2022 This appeal concerned the appellant's application for costs against HMRC under Rule 10(1)(b) after the tribunal allowed his appeal overturning discovery assessments and closure notices. The tribunal refused the costs application, finding HMRC had an arguable case and did not act unreasonably in defending the proceedings, particularly given the appellant's late production of evidence and failures to cooperate. The appellant succeeded on the substantive appeal but not on any basis that HMRC's conduct justified an award of costs.

E-zec Medical Transport Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 302 (TC) 25 August 2022 E-zec appealed HMRC's refusal to treat its non-emergency patient transport services as zero-rated under Item 4(a) read with Note 4D of Schedule 8 VATA. The Tribunal accepted the Appellant's factual evidence about vehicle conversions and held the ramp, winch, floor system, wheelchair pen and tip-and-fold seats are "wheelchair modifications" within Note 4D(a). Applying Note 4D(b) hypothetically excluding those modifications, the Tribunal concluded the base vehicles would be capable of carrying at least ten persons and allowed the appeal, holding the services are zero-rated under Item 4(a).

Nottingham Forest Football Club Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 305 (TC) 25 August 2022 This case concerned whether HMRC's VAT assessment for period 08/15, issued 29 April 2019, was time‑barred under s73(6)(b) VATA by reason of when HMRC had "knowledge of the facts" sufficient to justify assessment. The tribunal found the appellant did not prove on the balance of probabilities that HMRC had such knowledge by 20 April 2018 (as opposed to 9 May 2018 when additional Sage data was obtained). The assessment was therefore not time‑barred and the appeal was dismissed.

Valyrian Bloodstock Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 306 (TC) 25 August 2022 This appeal challenged HMRC’s refusal to issue EIS compliance certificates for shares issued by Valyrian Bloodstock Ltd in 2019. The Tribunal found on contemporaneous documentary evidence (website, marketing and correspondence) that the share offers were for three‑year syndicates intended to be wound up for capital sale, so the s157A risk‑to‑capital and trading requirements were not met. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s refusal upheld.

Joshua Peter Taylor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 304 (TC) 24 August 2022 This appeal concerned HMRC's paragraph 9 Schedule 16 FA 2020 assessment requiring repayment of two SEISS payments totalling £4,549 that HMRC said were paid to someone not entitled. The Tribunal found the appellant had ceased self‑employment on 31 July 2018 and was thereafter a director of a limited company, so he was not carrying on a trade in his individual capacity and was not eligible for SEISS; HMRC's digital audit logs and claim screenshots supported that the online declarations formed part of the claim. The Tribunal upheld the assessment and dismissed the appeal.

Coconut Animated Island Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 303 (TC) 23 August 2022 Coconut Animated Island Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to authorise SEIS certificates for shares issued 19 March–5 April 2018. The Tribunal found the company satisfied the risk-to-capital and IP “created” tests (it had long‑term growth objectives and commissioning/subcontracting plus payment vested exploitation rights), but held Condition A of the disqualifying‑arrangements test was met because a majority of funds raised went to a related CHF Group entity (CHFE). The appeal was therefore dismissed.

Burlington Loan Management DAC v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 290 (TC) 22 August 2022 This appeal concerned whether Article 12(5) of the UK–Ireland tax treaty prevented an Irish-resident purchaser (BLM) from obtaining treaty relief under Article 12(1) for statutory interest on a claim it bought from SICL. The First-tier Tribunal found Article 12(5) does not require artificiality but does require that the relevant person’s main purpose was to take advantage of Article 12(1); applying that test the Tribunal concluded neither BLM nor SICL had that main purpose and so Article 12(5) did not bar relief. The Tribunal therefore allowed BLM’s appeal in respect of the SAAD Claim and ordered refund of the withheld tax.

Star Services Oxford Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 291 (TC) 22 August 2022 Star Services Oxford Ltd appealed a VAT assessment of £26,250 after HMRC disallowed input tax it had claimed on rental invoices for 6 Gloucester Street addressed to Mr Abdul Latifi. The Tribunal found the legal contracting party under the lease was Mr Latifi (a sole proprietor), not the company, and therefore Star Services was not entitled to reclaim the VAT. HMRC’s best-judgment assessment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Ernestina Marfo v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 289 (TC) 19 August 2022 Ms Marfo sought permission to notify an appeal out of time against HMRC discovery assessments for the HICBC for years to 5 April 2017 and 2018. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland test, found the c.320-day delay serious, but granted permission because the appellant’s underlying case was plainly strong in light of the Upper Tribunal decision in Wilkes. The Tribunal declined to re-impose a stay and directed HMRC to consider and respond to the late appeal.

The Magnet Partnership v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 288 (TC) 17 August 2022 The Magnet Partnership appealed HMRC discovery amendments to its partnership returns for 2004/05–2014/15. The Tribunal found HMRC (Officer Ellsbury) had reasonably "discovered" omitted profits from seized CLAC documents and that payments routed to family partnerships were, in substance, drawings rather than deductible expenses. The appeal was dismissed and the discovery amendments upheld.

Adspec Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 285 (TC) 15 August 2022 This case concerns appeals by Adspec Ltd and its sole director Mr Adil Hussain against HMRC discovery corporation tax assessments, VAT best-judgement assessments (including backdating the effective date of registration), civil penalties for deliberate inaccuracies and failure to notify, and Personal Liability Notices. HMRC relied on import data and online-platform records indicating undeclared sales and on the company's failure to provide statutory records or cooperate. The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s discovery assessments and VAT best-judgement assessments (backdating VAT registration to 4 March 2013), upheld the penalties (with reductions applied by HMRC) and confirmed the PLNs against Mr Hussain, but amended the corporation tax figures in line with HMRC’s revised computation.

Graham Davis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 274 (TC) 15 August 2022 This appeal concerned whether Mr Graham Davis could set off sole trader losses against income from USL Securities Ltd under ITA 2007 s.86 following incorporation. The Tribunal found there was no transfer of a trade from Mr Davis to USL and that the shares were subscribed for in cash, not allotted as consideration for a transfer of trade, so s.86 did not apply. The appeal was dismissed and s.86 relief denied for 2016/17 and 2017/18.

Matrix Rental Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 286 (TC) 15 August 2022 Matrix Rental Ltd purchased a residential property on 3 July 2018 and filed an ATED relief return on 25 February 2019, 210 days late. HMRC imposed a £100 late filing penalty and a £300 six‑month penalty (daily penalties were withdrawn); the First‑tier Tribunal found the return was due within 30 days of acquisition, rejected the Appellant’s reasonable excuse and special‑circumstances arguments, and dismissed the appeal. The penalties were held to have been issued within statutory time limits.

Philip Oag v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 287 (TC) 15 August 2022 This case concerned HMRC's application to strike out part of Mr Oag's appeal challenging a VAT assessment for 1 April 2011–31 March 2018 on the basis that the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction. The Tribunal held the 2011–2018 assessment was made under section 73(1) VATA 1994 and that section 83(1)(p)(i) permits an appeal only where a return for the relevant period has been made, so it struck out the appeal for 2011–2018; the appeal against the 2005–06 assessment remains extant.

Carl James v The Welsh Revenue Authority [2022] UKFTT 271 (TC) 11 August 2022 Mr James appealed a Welsh Revenue Authority closure notice assessing £2,400 LTT and a £468 penalty after he and his wife combined two dwellings into one following purchase. The Tribunal upheld the closure notice as properly issued and held higher‑rate LTT applied, but found the return was inaccurate through carelessness and ordered the penalty to be recalculated as unprompted with full disclosure reduction.

Owen Patrick Williams v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 269 (TC) 11 August 2022 This appeal concerned a 17 April 2020 Closure Notice that amended Mr Williams' 2017/18 return to include omitted pension income and purported to remove a separate £200,918 repayment/early‑repayment claim. The Tribunal upheld the Closure Notice so far as it increased tax to reflect the omitted pension income but held that the Closure Notice should not have disallowed the £200,918 repayment claim because HMRC had not opened the appropriate enquiries in time. All wider complaints about 2018 loan‑charge/settlement matters and other non‑appealable remedies were struck out for lack of Tribunal jurisdiction.

Corach International Transport Ltd v Directors of Border Revenue [2022] UKFTT 272 (TC) 8 August 2022 This case concerns Corach International Transport Ltd’s application for restoration of a lorry seized by Border Force after 42kg of cocaine was found; the Border Force reviewer had refused restoration on the basis Corach was complicit. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the drugs were likely concealed in the load before collection and that Corach had no involvement or knowledge, and held the review decision was flawed for relying on a complicit-finder the Tribunal rejected. The Tribunal set aside the review decision and directed Border Force to carry out a fresh review informed by the Tribunal’s factual findings.

Rosa Mohamed Birhan v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 270 (TC) 5 August 2022 Mrs Birhan appealed a civil evasion penalty imposed after HMRC seized 2,400 cigarettes and 52 kg of shisha tobacco she brought from Dubai. The tribunal preferred her oral evidence (including language/translation difficulties and that a shopkeeper repacked the shisha) over earlier correspondence and applied the Genting test. It found she genuinely believed the goods were allowable, concluded there was no dishonesty and allowed the appeal, cancelling the penalty.

Guy Boardman v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 238 (TC) 3 August 2022 This appeal concerned whether SIPP purchases of shares in two Omega companies were at arm's length, whether an unauthorised payments surcharge should be discharged, and whether payments from related LLPs to Mr Boardman were taxable distributions. The Tribunal found the SIPP purchases were not at arm's length, upheld the unauthorised payments charge and refused to discharge the surcharge, and on the balance of probabilities treated the LLP payments as taxable distributions (with one 2014–15 distribution assessment reduced to nil by HMRC). Parties were given 56 days to apply for permission to appeal.

Bobby Khan Enterprises Ltd & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 236 (TC) 1 August 2022 This case concerns appeals by Bobby Khan Enterprises Ltd and its directors against HMRC discovery assessments for omitted purchases/profits, VAT and taxes on alleged misappropriated funds for accounting periods 2011–2017. The First‑tier Tribunal found HMRC’s supplier data showed substantial omissions, rejected the appellants’ alternative explanations as not credible, and upheld HMRC’s methodology (using the company’s 23% mark‑up for the enquiry year, extrapolating by presumption of continuity, and making best‑judgment VAT and s455/BIK/NIC assessments), subject to limited adjustments for verified creditor claims.

Spectrum Community Health CIC v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 237 (TC) 1 August 2022 Spectrum supplied integrated primary healthcare services in 13 prisons to NHS England under single NHS Standard Contracts. The Tribunal held each contract constituted a single composite supply of medical care, exempt under Article 132(1)(c)/Item 1 Group 7 Schedule 9 VATA, and rejected Spectrum's claim that parts (dispensing drugs, contraceptives) were separate taxable supplies. Spectrum's appeal was dismissed.

Peppermint Foods Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 232 (TC) 28 July 2022 This appeal concerned a VAT best‑of‑judgment assessment by HMRC of Peppermint Foods Ltd, alleging hot takeaway sales had been wrongly recorded as zero‑rated cold sales at two Subway outlets. The Tribunal found HMRC's assessment (reduced on review to £144,383 for the relevant periods) was based on evidence and not arbitrary, was issued within the one‑year time limit, and dismissed the appeal. The appellant did not prove the assessment was excessive or provide a reliable alternative figure.

SilverDoor Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 233 (TC) 28 July 2022 SilverDoor appealed VAT assessments charging VAT on a 2.95% corporate-card fee it charged Clients when booking short-term lettings. The Tribunal found the fee was consideration for SilverDoor's standard-rated reservation services (it acted as disclosed agent for Property Partners) and not an exempt financial service. Alternatively, the Tribunal held SilverDoor did not execute transfers of money nor act as an intermediary bringing parties together for an exempt financial transaction. The appeal was dismissed and the VAT assessments upheld.

Guardian Assurance Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 234 (TC) 27 July 2022 Guardian Assurance Ltd (GAL) appealed HMRC’s closure notice that recharacterised GAL’s taxation of its minority shareholding in E-L Financial Services Ltd (ELFS) for 2013–2015. The tribunal found that whether an asset is a "structural asset" under the Finance Act 2012 requires a holistic assessment of factors such as control/influence, involvement/information rights, the nature of the investee’s business and the length/permanence of the holding, and concluded that GAL’s ELFS holding was a structural asset. The appeal was allowed in full and HMRC’s amendments disallowed.

Iraque Miah v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 228 (TC) 27 July 2022 This appeal concerned discovery assessments for undeclared rental income and a car benefit, and whether five October 2020 documents created fresh appeal rights or merely recorded an earlier statutory review. The Tribunal held the October Documents did not constitute new assessments and that the rental income issue had been settled so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction on that head. Permission to notify late against the statutory review decision on the car benefit was refused for unexplained delay, so the review decision is treated as agreed.

SNM Pipelines Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 231 (TC) 27 July 2022 SNM Pipelines Ltd challenged HMRC assessments and filed a notice of appeal in August 2017 but had not paid the disputed VAT nor made a hardship application at that time. The First-tier Tribunal held that the 2017 filing nonetheless constituted a valid notice of appeal; the tribunal may not proceed with the appeal until payment is made or hardship relief granted, but the appeal itself was timely and is admitted. HMRC subsequently accepted the hardship application, enabling the appeal to go forward.

William Raymond Ruske v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 310 (TC) 27 July 2022 Mr Ruske was found to have carried quantities of tobacco well above allowances into the UK and to have entered the green channel for the purpose of evading customs and excise duties; the tribunal found he acted dishonestly on the balance of probabilities. The tribunal rejected his account that he believed duties no longer applied (or held that even a sincere belief would be objectively dishonest) but allowed mitigation, reducing the joint civil evasion penalty by 80% to £1,107.

Jonathan Mark Slade & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 227 (TC) 26 July 2022 This case concerned whether sums paid by two vendors under a High Court consent order (damages and costs) were deductible from the proceeds of sale when calculating CGT on the 2015 disposal of the Southern Parcel. The tribunal held the payments were not deductible under s.38(1)(b) TCGA 1992 because they were not incurred wholly and exclusively in preserving or defending title to the asset disposed of. The discovery assessments issued by HMRC were found to be formally valid and were upheld; the appeals were dismissed.

Tej Lawati v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 230 (TC) 26 July 2022 This case concerned whether out-of-time appeals against late filing penalties for 2017–18 should be admitted. The Tribunal applied the Martland approach, found the delay was serious and unexplained, rejected asserted reasons (non‑receipt of notices and alleged agent error) as unsupported by evidence, and refused to admit the late appeals. The appellant withdrew the 2018–19 challenge and was told of the right to seek permission to appeal.

The Towards Zero Foundation (Formerly Global New Car Assessment Programme) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 22 July 2022 This appeal concerned whether The Towards Zero Foundation’s provision of free initial vehicle crash-testing is a non-business (non-economic) activity for VAT purposes or part of a single business supplying testing services to manufacturers. The Tribunal found the free testing is a necessary investment and integral to the Foundation’s later taxable, manufacturer-funded testing, so the Foundation was entitled to recover the relevant UK input VAT. HMRC’s assessments (total £152,311) were set aside and the appeal allowed.

Leilani Mitchell & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 273 (TC) 21 July 2022 This case is an application by Ms Mitchell and Mr Head for permission to bring late appeals against late-filing penalties for 2014‑15, 2016‑17 and 2018‑19. The tribunal applied the three-stage Denton/Martland approach and refused permission, finding the delays were excessive, the appellants gave scant first‑hand evidence, and their prospects on the merits were weak. The application for permission to notify/make late appeals was therefore refused.

Lynton Exports (Alsager) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 224 (TC) 20 July 2022 This case concerns Lynton Exports' appeals against HMRC Kittel assessments denying input VAT (total ~£5.86m) and Mecsek assessments denying zero-rating/assessing output VAT (total ~£4.83m) in respect of 374 sales of soft drinks and confectionery from Wholesale Distribution Ltd to two Irish customers. The Tribunal found HMRC had not proved the Company knew or should have known the purchases were connected with VAT fraud and that the Company had taken reasonable steps regarding onward sales; accordingly both the Kittel and Mecsek assessments were disallowed and the appeals allowed in full. The Tribunal recorded a right to seek permission to appeal.

Kevin John Pitt v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 222 (TC) 19 July 2022 This case concerns claims to tax relief under paragraph 2 of Schedule 13 (Finance Act 1999) arising from subscription and transfer of loan notes that the Tribunal found were part of an integrated, tax‑driven scheme. The Tribunal held that only £55,316 of the £750,000 subscribed was properly attributable to acquisition of the loan notes, the remainder being a capital contribution and not giving rise to a genuine commercial loss under Schedule 13, and therefore upheld HMRC's Closure Notice reducing relief to nil. The Tribunal also held that the follower notice relying on the decision in Audley was a relevant judicial ruling, it was unreasonable not to take corrective action, and affirmed a 30% penalty.

International (Plywood) Importers Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 223 (TC) 15 July 2022 This appeal concerned whether imported "Plastform 333 Concrete Shuttering Panels" should be classified as shuttering panels (CN 44 18 40 00, 0% duty) or as plywood/laminboard (CN 44 12 94 10, 7% duty). The Tribunal found the panels were a three-layer laminboard with MDO/Noxcrete coating whose objective construction and coatings demonstrated an intended use as concrete shuttering, and thus allowed the Appellant's appeal and discharged the penalty. The Tribunal also rejected HMRC's reliance by analogy on EC classification regulations it said were inapposite.

Bruce Firth & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 219 (TC) 13 July 2022 Trustees of the Batley 1984 Settlement appealed HMRC’s refusal of Business Property Relief (BPR) for shares in The Lawrance, an aparthotel operator. The Tribunal found The Lawrance did carry on a business but that it was predominantly on the investment/letting side of the investment–service spectrum because the additional guest services were peripheral. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld HMRC’s determinations refusing BPR.

K5K Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 217 (TC) 12 July 2022 K5K appealed HMRC PAYE and NIC decisions for 2014–2017 which treated named workers as employed persons under s 44 ITEPA and assessed K5K for PAYE/NIC; HMRC issued Regulation 80 determinations and NIC Notices totalling £260,991.21. The Tribunal found the notices valid despite not stating the charging provision on their face, concluded the template "Worker Contract" made the individuals (not their personal companies) the contracting parties, held s 44(1) conditions were satisfied and s 44(2) did not apply, and dismissed the appeal.

Altan Goksu v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 213 (TC) 11 July 2022 This appeal concerned whether a capital loss from a 1998 property sale had been notified and quantified to HMRC so it could be carried forward against a 2014-15 gain, and whether inaccuracies in a 2014-15 amended return were careless or deliberate. The Tribunal found the taxpayer's accountant had submitted a 2000 capital loss computation, allowed a provable minimum carried-forward loss of £412,126 (less than claimed), set the related penalty to nil, and held the taxpayer's overstatement of sale expenses was careless, imposing a penalty of £6,627.03. The appeal was allowed in part.

Paul Leightley v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 210 (TC) 8 July 2022 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 penalties for late filing of a 2019/20 self-assessment return. The Tribunal found HMRC had sent the Notice to File and the appellant had accessed his online account and partially completed a return but did not submit it; he had no reasonable excuse. HMRC withdrew two penalties (Para.3 and Para.4) which were allowed, but the Tribunal dismissed the appeal against the Para.5 six-month penalty of £300 and upheld it.

Carlick Contract Furniture Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 220 (TC) 7 July 2022 This appeal concerned whether wages for two employees first reported on PAYE Real Time Information (RTI) on 25 March 2020 qualified as "qualifying costs" under the First and Second CJRS Directions, which required RTI showing payment on or before the relevant CJRS day (28 February 2020 or 19 March 2020). The Tribunal held those payments did not meet paragraph 5(a)(i) of the First/Second Directions and therefore were not qualifying; it allowed the appeal only to the limited extent of reducing HMRC's assessment to exclude the amounts HMRC said related to the two employees. The Tribunal also held the Third Direction only permitted later flexible-furlough claims where a valid prior claim under the original Directions had been made, and rejected attempts to override the Directions' clear eligibility cut-off on grounds of fairness.

Hawksmoor Construction LTD v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 209 (TC) 6 July 2022 Hawksmoor Construction Ltd appealed a 5% VAT default surcharge for period 06/21, arguing a reasonable excuse for late payment due to staff changes and the director's absence. The FTT found Hawksmoor’s factual account proven but held those facts did not amount to a reasonable excuse because the company could reasonably have arranged delegation, bank access, invoicing or alternative finance. The appeal was dismissed and the £2,252.12 surcharge upheld.

Martyn Arthur and v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 216 (TC) 6 July 2022 This case concerns appeals by Mr and Mrs Arthur against HMRC assessments and penalties for 2014–15 and 2015–16 arising from chaotic company records and disputed treatment of inter‑company payments. The Tribunal relied primarily on bank statements, compared net annual movements (excluding clear personal reimbursements) with declared returns, and allocated any excess as self‑employment income, amending assessments and recalculating penalties. Some assessments and penalties were cancelled, others reduced or adjusted; the appeals were allowed in part.

SC Properties Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 214 (TC) 6 July 2022 This appeal concerned whether a husband-and-wife partnership (R & E Cooke Partnership) existed so that TCGA 1992 s161 and ITTOIA 2005 s178 elections could defer a capital gain and whether Schedule 15 FA 2003 removed SDLT on transfer to SC Properties Ltd. The Tribunal found no legally real partnership, so the elections had no effect, the Cookes owned the property when it was sold, a chargeable gain arose (taxable gain £716,745, half chargeable on Mr Cooke) and SDLT of £151,342 was payable. The appellants' additional claimed enhancement expenditure was not proven.

David Howick v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 208 (TC) 1 July 2022 This appeal concerned a Personal Liability Notice making Mr Howick personally liable for unpaid Class 1 NICs of S P Surface Finishers Ltd for April 2015–August 2016. The Tribunal found the company failed to pay the sums while continuing RTI submissions, that Mr Howick was the sole officer from 13 April 2015, and that the failures were attributable to his neglect on an objective standard. The appeal was dismissed and the Personal Liability Notice was confirmed for £63,337.40 (with statutory interest).

Bletchingley Church House Charity v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 211 (TC) 29 June 2022 Bletchingley Church House Charity (BCHC) appealed HMRC's refusal to repay £87,002.75 VAT claimed as zero‑rated under Item 1(a)(ii), Group 5, Sch. 8 VATA for refurbishment works to Church House prior to granting a long lease to a non‑charitable company (BCHAL). The Tribunal found the works were refurbishments (not excluded as new construction) but that the building was not intended for use "solely" for a relevant charitable purpose because BCHAL was not a charity, the lease was at a commercial rent, and lettings to the public (under 95% charitable hirers) were commercial. The zero‑rating did not apply and the appeal was dismissed.

Bluecrest Capital Management (UK) LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 204 (TC) 29 June 2022 This case concerned whether many BlueCrest LLP members fell within the UK "salaried members" rules for income tax and NICs by testing Conditions A (payments being "disguised salary") and B (members lacking significant influence). The Tribunal held discretionary allocations were, in substance, disguised salary so Condition A was met for the members in issue, but on Condition B senior portfolio managers (with $100m+ capital allocations) and desk heads were found to have significant influence and therefore did not meet Condition B, producing a mixed outcome (appeal allowed for those senior individuals, dismissed for others). The April 2014 resolutions capping allocations did not create the required link to LLP profits and would be disregarded if treated as avoidance.

Quality Convenience Store Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 207 (TC) 29 June 2022 This case concerns appeals by Quality Convenience Store Ltd against HMRC VAT and Corporation Tax assessments and related penalties based on alleged suppression of takings via excessive use of till "no sale" and 1p buttons. The Tribunal held HMRC's VAT best-judgment assessments and the Corporation Tax discovery assessments were valid and timely, but on the balance of probabilities found the appellant had not suppressed takings and that the returns were correctly stated. Because no additional tax was due, the penalty assessments were quashed and the appeals allowed.

Matthew Jenner v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 203 (TC) 28 June 2022 This appeal concerned HMRC Schedule 36 information notices served on Mr Jenner seeking detailed household expenditure and other personal financial documents to check his 2016/17 and 2017/18 tax positions. The Tribunal held HMRC bore the burden of showing requests were "reasonably required," set aside the requirement for detailed household expenditure as disproportionate, but varied and confirmed requests for basic financial information (director's loan analyses, limited details of sums drawn from trusts/others, and personal account schedules/statements under his control). Mr Jenner was directed to comply with the varied requirements within 30 days.

Barbara De’roy Badejo v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 202 (TC) 27 June 2022 This case concerns an application for permission to bring a late appeal against a 2013 capital gains tax assessment for a 2005/06 disposal. The Tribunal found a serious delay of over four years but accepted the appellant reasonably relied on her agent's repeated assertions that an appeal had been filed and that her significant health problems made changing agents unrealistic. Balancing the length of delay, reasons for it, and the absence of clear prejudice, the Tribunal allowed the late appeal and ordered HMRC to consider it and to serve a statement of case.

Northchurch Homes Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 201 (TC) 23 June 2022 This appeal concerned VAT treatment of extensive redevelopment works to a 1930s Voysean house; the appellant sought zero-rating as construction of a new building but alternatively claimed reduced-rate VAT as renovation of an "empty home." The Tribunal dismissed the zero-rate claim, finding more than a single façade and other substantial original elements (including a retained roof slope and internal structural parts) remained so Note 18(b) was not met. The Tribunal nonetheless allowed the alternative reduced-rate claim, finding the empty-home condition under Schedule 7A was satisfied and that it had jurisdiction to decide the point.

Ernest Batten v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 199 (TC) 22 June 2022 This appeal concerned whether Mr Batten was UK resident in 2012–13 (under pre-SRT common law) and thus resident in 2014–15 under the SRT, and whether HMRC's discovery assessment for 2014–15 was valid. The Tribunal found Mr Batten had made a distinct break from UK residence on moving to Gibraltar in 2010 but regained UK residence in 2012–13 on a multifactorial common-law assessment (notably available accommodation at his UK home and the end of his full‑time foreign employment), and upheld HMRC's discovery assessment as validly issued. The appeal was dismissed.

Maron Plant Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 198 (TC) 22 June 2022 Maron Plant Limited appealed HMRC’s alternative VAT assessments disputing zero‑rating for 29 plant/machinery transactions said to be dispatched to the Republic of Ireland. The First‑tier Tribunal found the appellant’s commercial evidence of export was seriously deficient and that the company had not taken reasonable steps of due diligence, so zero‑rating was not available. The appeal was dismissed and the Tribunal recorded that VAT should have been charged at the standard rate.

Cork Bonded Warehouse Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 215 (TC) 21 June 2022 Cork Bonded Warehouse Ltd sought permission to bring an appeal out of time against an excise duty Assessment dated 26 March 2020. The tribunal applied the Denton/Martland three-stage test, found an eight-plus month delay caused by the agent’s inadvertent failure to open an emailed attachment, but concluded that this did not amount to a good reason. Permission for the late appeal was refused.

Henry Annafi v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 197 (TC) 21 June 2022 This appeal concerned Schedule 55 late‑filing penalties for tax years 2016/17 and 2017/18. The Tribunal found Mr Annafi failed to prove a reasonable excuse for late filing in 2016/17 and upheld £1,600 of penalties, but accepted that he did send the 2016/17 paper return with an explanatory note and that, having followed HMRC telephone advice, his reliance on that advice amounted to a reasonable excuse for not filing for 2017/18; the 2017/18 penalties were discharged. The decision records rights to apply for permission to appeal.

William Aggrey v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 200 (TC) 21 June 2022 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments and penalties for 2013–14 relating to undeclared rental income and a capital gain on sale of a London flat. The First-tier Tribunal found rental income of £10,287 was received, allowed quantified enhancement and rental expenditure (including a £10,000 allowance), reduced taxable rental profit and recalculated tax and penalties. The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s use of extended time limits by finding the failure to declare rental income was deliberate and the failure to report the gain was careless, allowed the late appeal, and reduced the assessments and penalties accordingly.

Quayviews Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 190 (TC) 20 June 2022 Quayviews appealed three Schedule 55 late filing penalties for RTI periods (Nov 2020, Dec 2020, Jan 2021). The tribunal found the returns filed in a September 2020 batch were not within the relevant tax months but Quayviews had a reasonable excuse because HMRC guidance, correspondence and software reasonably indicated early filing would be permitted or accepted. The appeal was allowed and the three £100 penalties were quashed.

Ruhal Islam v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 188 (TC) 17 June 2022 This appeal concerned HMRC discovery assessments (2007/08–2014/15) and closure notices (2015/16–2016/17) alleging suppressed sales and undeclared rental income, based largely on disputed till rolls for 29 November 2015–30 January 2016. The First-tier Tribunal found significant weaknesses in HMRC’s evidence, including non-production of alleged covert surveillance and unreliable meeting notes, and concluded HMRC had not proved a loss of tax caused by careless or deliberate conduct. The appeal was allowed and the till‑based assessments and closure notices were not upheld to the extent they relied on the disputed till receipts and assessed rental income. Parties may apply for permission to appeal within 56 days.

Alan Parry Productions Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 194 (TC) 16 June 2022 This case concerned whether IR35 applied to Alan Parry Productions’ contracts with BSkyB for Mr Parry’s sports commentary in tax years 2013/14–2018/19. The tribunal treated the written contracts as the starting point, constructed counterfactual (hypothetical) contracts incorporating surrounding conduct, and applied the RMC three-stage test. It concluded the hypothetical contracts were contracts of employment (mutuality of obligation and control present) and dismissed the appeals, upholding HMRC’s determinations and NIC notices.

Beadnall Copley Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 183 (TC) 13 June 2022 This appeal concerned whether goodwill recorded on incorporation in 2013 derived from goodwill “acquired” from a retiring partner so as to attract Part 8 CTA amortisation. The Tribunal found the goodwill was a partnership asset before dissolution, partners held only beneficial (realisable) interests rather than separate ownership, and the Deed of Retirement did not show that Copley had owned and transferred the goodwill to Beadnall within the meaning of s.882(4) CTA. Accordingly Part 8 did not apply and the appellant’s amortisation claims failed; the appeal was dismissed but two Closure Notices were varied to correct a clerical apportionment error.

David Russell v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 185 (TC) 13 June 2022 This is an appeal by Mr David Russell against HMRC penalties for late self‑assessment filing (Schedule 55 FA 2009) and late payment of the Higher Income Child Benefit Charge (Schedule 56 FA 2009) for 2016/17–2018/19. The tribunal found HMRC had not proved the date or contents of a notice to file and quashed £300 of fixed filing penalties, but upheld £566 of late‑payment penalties because Mr Russell had no objectively reasonable excuse or qualifying special circumstances. HMRC's use of an unrelated 2012/13 campaign letter in its internal review was an irrelevant factor but did not invalidate the decision.

Cry Me A River Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 182 (TC) 12 June 2022 Cry Me A River Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to authorise SEIS compliance certificates for two share issues dated 19 June 2018. The Tribunal found Cry Me A River met the risk-to-capital condition, was carrying on the qualifying activity as a co-producer, and that there were no disqualifying arrangements with Secret Channel Films Ltd. The appeal was allowed and HMRC was wrong to refuse the SEIS certificates for the two investors.

Brac Saajan Exchange Ltd & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 180 (TC) 9 June 2022 This case concerns appeals by Brac Saajan Exchange Ltd (BSEL) and seven individuals against HMRC decisions cancelling BSEL's AML registration and imposing personal prohibitions or "not fit and proper" findings. The Tribunal found that most alleged breaches were either minor or remedied before cancellation, and that HMRC relied on unreliable or undisclosed spreadsheet analyses and mischaracterised evidence. The Tribunal allowed all appeals, quashed the Cancellation, Personal and Prohibition Decisions, and criticised HMRC's evidential handling and proportionality.

London Clean Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 196 (TC) 9 June 2022 London Clean Ltd appealed a £604.81 VAT default surcharge for a four-day late payment for period 06/21, arguing COVID‑19 disruptions, staff illness/isolation and accountant unavailability amounted to a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal found the company had approved and submitted an accurate return, produced no contemporaneous evidence or accountant statement, and concluded the business pressures did not objectively amount to a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge upheld.

Mattioli Woods Plc (As scheme administrator for the Lanson SIPP & Ors) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 179 (TC) 9 June 2022 This case concerned whether the mere creation or assumption of a legally enforceable debt (an IOU) by a pension scheme member counts as a "contribution paid" under s188 FA 2004 for relief-at-source purposes. The Tribunal held that the mere assumption/creation of a debt is not a "contribution paid"; an IOU is an asset of the scheme equivalent to a creditor claim and does not amount to the member parting with money or an asset qualifying for relief until the debt is satisfied. The appeals on the agreed Preliminary Issue were dismissed.

Exchequer Solutions Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 181 (TC) 7 June 2022 This case concerned whether Exchequer Solutions Ltd (ESL), an umbrella employer, had an overarching contract of employment with its agency workers, the validity of HMRC Regulation 80 determinations, entitlement to use HMRC benchmark scale rates, and whether travel/subsistence reimbursements were earnings for NICs. The tribunal found there was no overarching contract (each assignment created a separate contract), upheld the Regulation 80 determinations as valid, held that ordinary commuting reimbursements to a permanent workplace are earnings for NIC purposes, and found ESL was not entitled to use benchmark scale rates without a dispensation. Directions were given for parties to agree quantum or proceed to further hearing.

Hare Wines Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 176 (TC) 7 June 2022 Hare Wines Ltd appealed HMRC's 11 August 2020 refusal of AWRS approval. The First-tier Tribunal held the Refusal Decision unreasonable for legal and factual errors, including HMRC's treatment of EN2002's nine "fit and proper" criteria as requiring that each be met absolutely, and rejected HMRC's primary finding that the director had deliberately understated another person's role. The Tribunal set aside the refusal, ordered it to cease to have effect, and directed HMRC to review the application in light of the Tribunal's findings (facts as at review; law/policy as at 11 August 2020).

Jin Fu Chinese Takeaway Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 191 (TC) 31 May 2022 This case concerns HMRC assessments against Jin Fu Chinese Takeaway based largely on backup data extracted from its supplier AMB Foods, which HMRC said showed undeclared purchases and suppressed sales. The First-tier Tribunal found the AMB data reliable, upheld HMRC's VAT and direct tax (including s455 corporation tax) assessments, a closure notice and Schedule 24 penalties, and rejected the appellant's challenges including to time limits and rebuttal evidence. The appeals were dismissed except where HMRC's requested amendments to the assessments were accepted.

Seamus Kavanagh v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 173 (TC) 31 May 2022 This appeal concerned whether Seamus Kavanagh was beneficially entitled to an extra 0.002714293469% of Badger Group (Holdings) Ltd (the "Disputed Shares") so his holding reached 5% for entrepreneurs' relief. The tribunal found no express, constructive or resulting trust over the Disputed Shares, accepting contemporaneous documentary and oral evidence that the registered allotment left Kavanagh with 1,842 A Shares (4.997285706531%). The appeal against HMRC’s denial of entrepreneurs' relief was dismissed.

Ignatius Tedesco v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 171 (TC) 27 May 2022 This case concerned whether repayment of a company (Everscot)’s bank loan from sale proceeds qualified as an allowable incidental cost of disposing shares under s.38(1)(b) TCGA 1992. The Tribunal admitted a late appeal but found the appellant had not proved the repayment was expenditure "on" the shares or reflected in their state or nature at disposal, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the closure notice figures.

Alex Dower & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 170 (TC) 26 May 2022 The Tribunal considered whether an annexe above a detached garage was a second "dwelling" for Stamp Duty Land Tax Multiple Dwellings Relief at the effective date (1 August 2018). The annexe had a separate entrance, utilities and a shower room but no proper kitchen, separate council tax or postal address, and planning permission prohibited its use as a separate dwelling. The Tribunal found the annexe was not suitable for use as a single dwelling at the effective date, dismissed the appeal, and confirmed HMRC's closure notice increasing SDLT by £81,250.

Maddison Firth & Anor t/a Church Farm v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 169 (TC) 26 May 2022 This First-tier Tribunal dismissed Maddison Firth & Anor t/a Church Farm's appeal against HMRC, upholding a Section 73 reduction disallowing input VAT of £28,374.14 claimed in October 2020 for two cars, a personalised number plate and clothing. The Tribunal found the cars were available for private use at acquisition (evidenced by "social, domestic and pleasure" cover and lack of effective contractual restraints), the number plate was not shown to be a genuine business expense, and the clothing did not qualify as allowable business clothing.

Nigel Victor Gradidge v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 189 (TC) 24 May 2022 This appeal challenged a debt transfer notice (DTN) issued by HMRC to Mr Gradidge for PAYE and NICs transferred from N19 Training Services Ltd. The tribunal found Mr Gradidge was a director or at least the sole member/associate of the company and that s688(2) is a definitional provision not requiring the person to be in office at the date the DTN is served. The DTN for £31,024.15 was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

The Towards Zero Foundation v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 226 (TC) 24 May 2022 The Tribunal allowed The Towards Zero Foundation's appeal, holding that the charity's unpaid initial "free" crash tests formed part of a single business activity of providing NCAP testing to manufacturers and were not a separate non-business activity for VAT purposes. As a result, UK VAT on general overheads attributable to those tests was recoverable and HMRC's assessments (total £152,311) were set aside. The Tribunal treated the seed-funded tests as a necessary precursor/investment to later taxable supplies by manufacturers.

Whispering Smith Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 165 (TC) 23 May 2022 This appeal concerns follower-notice penalties imposed on Whispering Smith Ltd (WS) after HMRC treated the Supreme Court decision in UBS AG v HMRC (and DB) as a "relevant judicial ruling" that denied the tax advantage claimed under WS's STEP arrangements. The Tribunal held UBS was a relevant judicial ruling, rejected WS's defence that it was reasonable not to take corrective action, but allowed greater mitigation for cooperation, reducing the penalties to 34% of the denied advantage.

Haymarket Media Group Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 168 (TC) 18 May 2022 Haymarket sold a Teddington Site to a purchaser and HMRC assessed VAT, treating the sale as a standard supply rather than a transfer of a going concern (TOGC); the Tribunal dismissed Haymarket's appeal and upheld the £17m assessment. The Tribunal found Haymarket had not been carrying on a property development business in relation to the Site and that planning permission and related pre-sale steps did not by themselves constitute an ongoing development undertaking transferable as a TOGC. Leases created around exchange were judged to be tied to the purchaser and not to establish a transferred lettings business, so the transaction was a sale of land/assets, not a TOGC.

Adrian Corrigall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 163 (TC) 17 May 2022 This appeal concerned whether section 154 ITTOIA permits qualifying divers' employment income to be treated as trading income of a partnership with his wife, and whether the deeming provision changes the underlying legal character of the income. The Tribunal held that ITTOIA creates a statutory fiction for income tax purposes (treating the income as if profits of a trade) but does not convert employment income into an actual trade nor create a partnership; the appellant failed to prove a partnership existed and the income remained his employment income for substantive purposes.

Gerald Lee & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 175 (TC) 16 May 2022 This case concerned whether "period of ownership" for principal private residence relief (ss.222–223 TCGA 1992) refers to ownership of the dwelling-house sold or to ownership of the underlying land interest. The First-tier Tribunal held that the natural meaning of the statute attaches "period of ownership" to the dwelling-house being sold, rejected HMRC's argument that "dwelling-house" should be read to include the land, and allowed the appellants' appeal.

Neegum Sheth & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 167 (TC) 16 May 2022 This appeal concerned Personal Liability Notices (PLNs) issued to two former officers of AIL after HMRC denied zero‑rating of AIL’s dispatches under Mecsek‑Gabona/Kittel principles, alleging connection to MTIC fraud. The First‑tier Tribunal refused HMRC’s strike‑out application, heard full evidence, found HMRC had not proved (on the balance of probabilities) the existence of VAT losses or a connection between AIL’s transactions and fraudulent evasion, and concluded there were no deliberate inaccuracies in AIL’s returns; the PLNs were cancelled.

Nicola McQueen & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 212 (TC) 11 May 2022 The case concerned two appellants stopped at an airport arriving from Gran Canaria carrying tobacco and hand-rolling tobacco over personal allowances; HMRC imposed civil evasion penalties of £564 each. The Tribunal preferred the officer’s contemporaneous account, found the appellants initially denied carrying goods for another (a dishonest state of mind), and upheld the penalties and reductions applied. Appeals were dismissed.

Best On Convenience Store (A Firm) v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 159 (TC) 9 May 2022 This case implements the Tribunal's earlier "in principle" decision by considering HMRC's amended calculations of VAT, VAT penalties and partnership profits and the Appellant's written responses. The Tribunal accepted HMRC's amended calculations (including a £51,910 deduction), refused to admit most late arguments and evidence from the Appellant, and determined final liabilities: VAT £84,672.00, VAT penalties £61,743.40, with revised partnership profits allocated pro rata in Annex 3. The parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Henry Rafferty v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 161 (TC) 9 May 2022 This case concerns HMRC assessments and penalties arising from unexplained bank lodgements and the outright purchase of a house by Mr Henry Rafferty in 2015. The First‑tier Tribunal found Mr Rafferty failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, the factual sources of the capital claimed (inheritances, benefits and family contributions) with adequate documentary evidence, and therefore upheld HMRC’s closure notice, discovery assessments for multiple years and the related penalties including a £300 Schedule 36 penalty. All of Mr Rafferty’s appeals were dismissed.

John Douglas Wardle v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 158 (TC) 8 May 2022 This appeal concerned whether the appellant's disposal of LLP units qualified for entrepreneurs' relief by being a "material disposal of business assets," which required the LLP to have been trading for the one-year period before the disposal. The tribunal found insufficient evidence that the LLP had commenced trading in that period (construction had not started, key contracts were conditional or not produced), and dismissed the appeal.

London School of Accountancy and Management Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 239 (TC) 6 May 2022 LSAM appealed HMRC's refusal to allow a VAT credit of £781,505.76 claimed in period 09/12, asserting entitlement under Article 90 PVD as implemented by Reg 38 and s80 VATA due to credit notes issued after insolvency. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence unreliable, that no real-world reduction in taxable consideration had occurred, and dismissed the appeal.

Nicholas Close v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 193 (TC) 6 May 2022 This case concerned the market value for Readybuy Plc shares gifted to charity on 8 September 2003 and 9 December 2003 for capital gains tax relief, and appeals against HMRC closure notices. The Tribunal accepted the expert valuation approach largely but gave greater weight to arm’s‑length SPA consideration and subscriber subscription prices, finding market value to be 12.1p per share on both dates. The appeals were dismissed and HMRC’s assessments adjusted to reflect the 12.1p valuation; an abuse‑of‑process challenge was refused.

CIA Insurance Services Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 144 (TC) 4 May 2022 This case concerned recurring payments by CIA Insurance Services Ltd into a promoted remuneration trust and onward loans to three shareholder‑employees. The First‑tier Tribunal found the transactions pre‑ordained, rejected CIAISL’s commercial explanations, treated most loans (other than a December 2010 £350,000 payment) as taxable employment income under Part 7A and held the company’s corporation tax deductions were not allowable. HMRC’s discovery assessments were upheld; PAYE/NIC appeals were dismissed except as to the £350,000 Purported Contribution.

Timothy Johnson & Anor v TThe Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 156 (TC) 4 May 2022 This appeal concerned discovery assessments raised by HMRC after the appellants received substantial NatWest redress payments which their agent (Mayfield & Co / Mr Green) did not include as taxable income in the 2013/14 self-assessments, instead making a white-space disclosure. The First-tier Tribunal found that, although the agent acted in good faith, he failed to take the care of a reasonably competent tax adviser in not undertaking sufficient fact-finding and so his carelessness caused the loss of tax; the appeals were dismissed and the discovery assessments upheld.

Amar Fraz v The Director of Border Revenue [2022] UKFTT 187 (TC) 3 May 2022 This appeal concerns 30 iPhones seized by Border Force in December 2020 as undervalued imports; the appellant, Amar Fraz, had previously imported the same phones in October 2020 and paid duty then before sending them abroad for battery replacement. The Tribunal found it more likely than not the seized phones were the same duty-paid phones, held the Border Force’s refusal to restore them was unreasonable and disproportionate, and directed a fresh independent review taking the Tribunal’s factual findings into account.

Marcus and Marcus Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 145 (TC) 3 May 2022 This appeal concerned whether Clay Hill Lodge comprised multiple dwellings for Multiple Dwellings Relief under Schedule 6B FA 2003 and how the £875,000 purchase price should be apportioned on a "just and reasonable" basis. The Tribunal held the Main House and Summerhouse formed one dwelling and the Office formed part of the Annexe dwellings, and that it was just and reasonable to apportion consideration by reference to floor area (equal value per sqm). Applying the agreed floor-area apportionment using the District Valuer’s measurements attributed £443,713 to the Main House (below the £500,000 threshold), so MDR applied and the appeal was allowed.

The Tower One St George Wharf Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 154 (TC) 30 April 2022 This appeal challenged HMRC’s SDLT discovery assessment following a pre-planned series of transfers that resulted in a 999‑year lease being held by the Appellant. The First‑tier Tribunal found there had been no sub-sale under s45, refused group relief under paragraph 2(4A) of Schedule 7 because the steps formed part of arrangements one of whose main purposes was tax avoidance, and applied the deemed market value rule (s53) (Case 3 exception in s54(4) did not exclude it because a group relief claim had been made). The Appellant’s appeal was dismissed and SDLT was assessed on market value.

Daniel Ridgway v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 412 (TC) 29 April 2022 The Tribunal considered whether an outbuilding (the Old Summer House) acquired with a house was "residential property" for SDLT and whether pre-completion arrangements should be disregarded under anti-avoidance provisions. It found the commercial lease granted two weeks before completion lawfully prevented residential occupation, so Mixed Use Relief did not apply, but held section 75A et seq. treated the lease as a scheme transaction to be disregarded, producing a notional disposal to which Multiple Dwellings Relief applied. The appeal succeeded on tax liability (SDLT reassessed with Multiple Dwellings Relief) but failed as to statutory interest, which remained payable.

Sofology Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 153 (TC) 29 April 2022 This case concerned VAT assessments disallowing input tax reclaimed by sofa retailers Sofology and DFS on Google pay-per-click (PPC) advertising. The Tribunal found the PPC costs were directly and immediately attributable only to the taxable supply of sofas (not to the exempt insurance-intermediary services) and were not general overheads, so the appeals were allowed and the assessments set aside as regards denial of the PPC input tax.

The Commissioners for HMRC v AML Tax (UK) Limited & Anor [2022] UKFTT 174 (TC) 29 April 2022 This appeal concerned whether "split contract" arrangements promoted by AML entities were notifiable under DOTAS and whether AML (UK) and Denmedical were promoters. The Tribunal found the arrangements afforded a tax advantage (the predominant reason users entered) and met the premium-fee and standardised-product hallmarks, with regulation 11 grandfathering not applying to Denmedical. The Tribunal declared the arrangements notifiable and that AML (UK) and Denmedical were promoters because they went beyond mere introduction and took on organising/management tasks.

Hodge and Deery Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 157 (TC) 26 April 2022 Hodge & Deery Ltd supplied and installed flexible pre-formed burial vaults at a cemetery and the Tribunal held those services were VAT-exempt under Item 2 of Group 8, Schedule 9 to the VAT Act 1994 as services "in connection with the disposal of the remains of the dead." The Tribunal found the supplies produced the provision of graves for disposal and that exemption can apply to services supplied in advance and by subcontractors, not only to services tied to a specific funeral. The appeal was allowed.

Ivan Wroe & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 143 (TC) 25 April 2022 This case concerns three former directors/shareholders who restructured Proline in 2013, receiving preference shares that were later repurchased by Jenbest; they treated proceeds as capital but HMRC issued counteraction notices and income tax assessments under the Transactions in Securities rules. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that one of the main purposes of the reorganisation and the preference-share repurchases was to obtain an income tax advantage, and that the prior HMRC clearance was void because material facts (notably the likelihood of repurchase) were omitted. The appeals were dismissed and HMRC's counteraction notices and assessments were upheld.

David Andreae v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 142 (TC) 21 April 2022 This appeal concerned follower‑notice penalties imposed on Mr Andreae for failing to take corrective action in relation to an Isle of Man scheme. The Tribunal found he had reasonably relied on his professional advisers (Montpelier) and on ongoing litigation, so it was objectively reasonable for him not to take corrective action by the deadline. The appeal succeeded and the penalties were cancelled.

Staysure.co.uk Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 134 (TC) 21 April 2022 Staysure appealed HMRC's VAT assessment and penalty arising from services provided by related Gibraltar company Intervest. The Tribunal found Intervest's activities amounted to a single exempt insurance-intermediary supply so Staysure was not required to register and the global assessment was invalid; alternatively, the assessment was time‑barred except for the final three-month period. The Tribunal also found Staysure had no reasonable excuse for late notification but mitigated any penalty to £159,171 for cooperation.

Michael Breen v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 155 (TC) 14 April 2022 This appeal concerned a Schedule 55 penalty of £10,664.69 imposed for filing the 2014/15 self-assessment return late. Mr Breen argued a debilitating fear of HMRC and PTSD from prior investigations gave him a "reasonable excuse" and that "special circumstances" justified reduction. The Tribunal rejected his evidence, found no reasonable excuse and no basis to disturb HMRC's special-circumstances decision, and dismissed the appeal.

Jeremy Lowe v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 164 (TC) 13 April 2022 This appeal challenged HMRC Closure Notices that reallocated qualifying diving employment income to the appellant rather than to a declared 50/50 partnership with his wife. The Tribunal held the income remained the appellant’s employment income, taxed under ITTOIA as if it were trade profits for income tax purposes only, and found the appellant had not proved a partnership with his wife. The Closure Notices stood as adjusted.

David Hackmey v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 160 (TC) 6 April 2022 HMRC issued a Schedule 36 information notice to Mr Hackmey seeking various bank, card and trust documents for 2013–2017. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC had reasonable grounds to require details of trusts of which Mr Hackmey was a beneficiary (Item 11) because of links to UK property projects, but did not have continuing reasonable grounds for the other contested intrusive banking and card material (Items 1–10), which were set aside. The Tribunal assessed HMRC’s suspicion in light of material disclosed after the Notice and required a clear connection between the documents sought and the suspected tax issues.

Elaine Curtis v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 172 (TC) 29 March 2022 Mrs Curtis transferred a BT pension in 2012 and received a £20,000 payment routed via Blu Funding; the Tribunal found that payment was in substance an unauthorised member payment derived from her transferred pension. HMRC's discovery assessment was held invalid because the statutory conditions for assessing a self‑assessed taxpayer under s.29 TMA 1970 were not satisfied when the assessment was made, and the appeal was allowed; alternatively, had the assessment been valid the Tribunal would have discharged the 15% unauthorised payments surcharge on fairness grounds and reduced the assessment to £8,000.

Proctor & Gamble International Operations SA v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 229 (TC) 18 March 2022 This appeal concerned the tariff classification of Metamucil Suikervrij Orange (MSO) and whether ispaghula husk in MSO is a "plant extract" (making MSO a medicament under CN heading 3004) or instead a non-active "food preparation" (heading 2106) or a "chemically defined substance". The Tribunal held ispaghula husk is a "plant extract" for the CNEN and not a "chemically defined substance", and therefore MSO is properly classifiable as a medicament under heading 3004; P&G's appeal was allowed. P&G’s application for costs was dismissed.

One Call Insurance Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 184 (TC) 11 March 2022 One Call challenged a Schedule 36 information notice served by HMRC seeking documents about its use of a remuneration trust (WUT No 1 Ltd). The Tribunal found HMRC's investigation raised genuine tax issues and that many requested items were reasonably required to check corporation tax, PAYE and NIC positions, with limited rewording of some items. HMRC established a prima facie case that documents were in One Call's possession or de facto power and One Call had not shown serious attempts to obtain third‑party documents; the notice was varied in wording where appropriate and otherwise confirmed, and the appeal was dismissed.

Nicholas Medhurst v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 186 (TC) 10 March 2022 This case concerns Mr Nicholas Medhurst's appeal against HMRC's calculation of his state pension qualifying years; HMRC recorded 20 years then accepted 21 after archival searches, and the Tribunal found no further contributions or credits. The Tribunal refused an adjournment to permit oral evidence from Vietnam because guidance requires prior FCDO clarification before hearing oral evidence from abroad, proceeded on written evidence to avoid prolonged delay, and dismissed the appeal.

A Taxpayer v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 133 (TC) 2 March 2022 This is an appeal against HMRC’s closure notice treating the Appellant as UK resident by counting days she spent in the UK caring for her twin sister and the sister’s two young children. The Tribunal construed paragraph 22(4) Schedule 45 purposively and found that the combination of caring responsibilities during a crisis amounted to “exceptional circumstances” that were beyond the Appellant’s control, prevented her leaving, and she intended to leave as soon as practicable. The disputed days were therefore disregarded and the appeal was allowed.

Intelligent Money Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 338 (TC) 25 February 2022 This appeal concerned whether VAT charged on administration fees for the Intelligent Money SIPP was repayable because the supplies were exempt "insurance or reinsurance". The Tribunal accepted that the SIPP met the domestic Prudential test of life assurance but held the operator did not assume the financial risk of benefits and members bore investment risk with funds held in trust. The supplies were therefore not "insurance transactions" for VAT purposes and the repayment claim was dismissed.

Intelligent Money Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 148 (TC) 25 February 2022 This appeal concerned whether fees charged by Intelligent Money for operating its SIPP were VAT-exempt as "insurance or reinsurance." The Tribunal found the SIPP met the domestic Prudential test for life assurance but, applying CJEU authority, held the operator did not assume the financial risk required for an VAT-exempt insurance transaction. The appeal was dismissed and the claimed VAT repayments were not due.

Andrew Nuttall v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 192 (TC) 21 February 2022 Mr Nuttall applied to bar HMRC and have his appeal allowed for abuse of process, arguing HMRC's more than 12‑year delay in an aspect enquiry into his 2003–04 gift relief claim was inordinate and culpable. The Tribunal found the delay was inordinate and culpable but concluded it had not prejudiced the fairness of the hearing, and therefore refused the application for a procedural remedy. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to consider abuse of process only to the extent the alleged conduct affected the fairness of the hearing.

Inferno Films Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 141 (TC) 17 February 2022 This appeal concerned whether Inferno Films Ltd met the s.157A ITA07 "risk-to-capital" condition for EIS relief in relation to a 3 April 2019 share issue. The Tribunal found that (a) it was reasonable at that date to conclude the company had long‑term objectives to grow and develop its film production trade despite focusing on completing one film and using subcontractors, and (b) there was a significant risk to investors' capital because returns depended wholly on the commercial success of a single project. The appeal was allowed and HMRC was ordered to authorise EIS compliance certificates for those shares.

SGA Productions Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 8 February 2022 SGA Productions appealed HMRC's disallowance of Theatre Tax Relief for 2015 for shows at Legoland Windsor and Whipsnade. The Tribunal held the "commercial purpose condition" was not met because park admission fees were composite prices not specifically referable to attendance at the theatrical productions, so SGA could not show a high proportion of performances were targeted at paying members of the public. The appeal was dismissed.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Smartpay Limited (incorporated in the UK) & Anor [2022] UKFTT 146 (TC) 7 February 2022 HMRC applied for an order under FA 2004 s.314A that the "Optima Employed" contractor‑loan arrangements were notifiable and that Smartpay Ltd (UK) and Smartpay Ltd (IOM) were promoters. The First‑tier Tribunal found the arrangements met s.306(1) and the premium‑fee prescribed description, and it held both respondents were promoters. The tribunal made the order sought; parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Alan Piper v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 26 January 2022 Mr Piper appealed historic HMRC tax assessments and associated surcharges and interest dating mainly from 1999/2000 and 2000/2001, but the Tribunal found the appeal was brought about 16–18 years late. Applying the established three-stage test for permission to bring out-of-time tax appeals, the Tribunal concluded there was no good reason for the very long delay, the appeal had no realistic prospect of success on the interest issue, and refused permission to admit the late appeal. The Tribunal also held it had no power to amend or waive statutory interest or to give effect to an alleged agreement not to collect interest. Parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

William Stockler v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 132 (TC) 10 January 2022 This case concerns Mr Stockler's application for a tribunal direction requiring HMRC to issue a closure notice for his 2017–18 self‑assessment arising from BPRA‑related partnership loss claims. HMRC had opened partnership enquiries (Maven Cardiff and Stanley Dock) which gave rise to deemed enquiries into partners' individual returns; HMRC said further information (including possible VOA valuation) was needed. The Tribunal found HMRC was entitled to continue the 2017–18 enquiry while relevant partnership enquiries remained open and refused the application for a direction to issue a closure notice.

Dermot McMeekin v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 223 (TC) 6 January 2022 This case concerns whether Mr McMeekin’s appeals against HMRC discovery assessments (for 2011-12 to 2014-15) should be stayed pending determination of his appeal against Schedule 36 information notices. The First-tier Tribunal held that the Notices Appeal would be of material assistance in determining three of the four assessment years and that it was expedient and consistent with the Tribunal’s overriding objective to stay the Assessments Appeal. The Tribunal stayed the Assessments Appeal until 28 days after determination of the Notices Appeal and preserved parties’ right to seek permission to appeal this preliminary decision.

Errol Willy Salons Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 17 (TC) 5 January 2022 This appeal concerned whether letting two rooms to beauticians by Errol Willy Salons Ltd was a VAT-exempt letting of land or a standard-rated supply of services. The tribunal found the arrangements conferred the four characteristics of a lease (defined area, right to exclude, agreed periodic term, and payment by turnover rent) and that additional services (reception, toilet access, limited advertising, utilities) were ancillary. The supply was therefore a relatively passive, VAT-exempt letting of land and the appeal was allowed.

Telent Technology Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 147 (TC) 9 December 2021 Telent (via TTSL) sought repayment of VAT including an "Overlap Period" of £855,754; HMRC conceded the substantive repayment claim for other periods but applied to strike out the Overlap Period claim. The Tribunal held HMRC could rely on VATA s85(1) and (4) to treat Telent's earlier withdrawal as deeming the original decision upheld (including reasons where relevant) and found the Overlap Period claim barred by cause of action estoppel (alternatively issue estoppel and abuse of process). The strike-out of the Overlap Period claim was allowed; the remainder of Telent’s claim was not struck out.

Thyssenkrupp Materials (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs [2022] UKFTT 443 (TC) 30 November 2021 Thyssenkrupp appealed HMRC's C18 demand for customs duty and VAT arising from allegedly inaccurate or incomplete inward processing relief (IPR) bills of discharge (BODs) for March–December 2014. The First-tier Tribunal held that non‑fulfilment of an obligation linked to IPR can give rise to a customs debt for the entire quantity covered by the BOD, that the supervising office may require BOD particulars sufficient to reconcile with customs records, and that even single‑row or minor errors can therefore render a BOD inaccurate/incomplete. TK's appeal was dismissed on these issues of principle; quantum was left to agreement or further proceedings.

Wincanton Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 446 (TC) 29 November 2021 Wincanton applied to the First-tier Tribunal for an unreasonable costs order under rule 10 after HMRC issued and later withdrew excise duty and VAT assessments relating to allegedly diverted goods. The Tribunal dismissed the costs application because Wincanton’s cost schedule failed to comply with rule 10(3)(b) and, in any event, there were no substantive proceedings before the Tribunal (hardship/payment conditions remained undecided) on which a costs award could properly be based. The Tribunal therefore did not decide whether HMRC had behaved unreasonably.

Worldpay (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 162 (TC) 1 October 2021 Worldpay sought indemnity costs from HMRC after HMRC amended its pleading late (to rely on Halifax abuse) and then withdrew the case shortly before the re-listed hearing. The Tribunal refused indemnity costs, finding HMRC’s conduct fell within the range of acceptable conduct, but ordered HMRC to pay Worldpay’s costs of the appeals on the standard basis and to pay £250,000 on account within 14 days. The Tribunal also ordered Worldpay to pay HMRC’s costs of the indemnity-application on the standard basis.

David Christopher Wilby v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 348 (TC) 8 September 2021 This appeal challenged a 2011 SDLT discovery assessment of £21,700 after HMRC's data‑matching showed the Land Registry TR1 recorded c. £542,000 but the SDLT return declared £120,000. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that an HMRC inspector, acting within a small team and following controlled procedures (including flagging an "Indicative Agent"), formed the requisite belief and that a reasonable officer could have done so given the unexplained mismatch; the assessment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Hyrax Resourcing Limited [2022] UKFTT 218 (TC) 13 July 2021 This case concerns HMRC's penalty claim under TMA s100C for Hyrax Resourcing Limited's failure to notify promoter tax‑avoidance arrangements (DOTAS) between 9 April 2014 and 5 March 2019. The First‑tier Tribunal found Hyrax did fail to notify, rejected its reliance on advice from the scheme promoter/EDF and its counsel as a reasonable excuse, held Hyrax's arrangements were not "substantially the same" as K2 so were not deemed notified, and imposed the statutory maximum penalty of £1,074,600. Hyrax was given leave to seek permission to appeal.

David Stuart Wesley & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 1041 (TC) 15 February 2021 This appeal by the trustees of the Ellen Morris 1990 Settlement challenged HMRC’s closure notice assessing capital gains arising on the liquidation of Wesmor Ltd after trustees were temporarily resident in Mauritius. The Tribunal rejected the trustees’ contention that Article 4(3) DTC operated to treat different persons as taxable in the two states and held that the place of effective management (POEM) of the trustees/trust was the UK because top-level decisions were devised and orchestrated in the UK; the appeal was therefore dismissed and the gains held taxable in the UK.

Knightsbridge Accountants Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 9 February 2021 Knightsbridge Accountants Ltd appealed HMRC VAT assessments disallowing input tax on three invoices (Standard Life, Waterfords, IAS). The Tribunal found documentary and title evidence showed another company (Knightsbridge Holdings Ltd) as legal owner so the Appellant could not recover input tax on the Standard Life invoice; the Waterfords invoice failed to identify the services and lacked corroboration; the IAS invoice was damaged/illegible and an amended invoice produced late was unreliable. The Tribunal upheld the assessments and dismissed the appeal.

HFFX LLP & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC 8 February 2021 This case concerns whether amounts paid under a Capital Allocation Plan (CAP) for HFFX LLP members — particularly sums routed via GSAM as "Special Capital" — were allocations of partnership profits to individuals or taxable to individuals in other ways. The Tribunal held that the CAP did not effect allocations of partnership profit to individual members (so appellants succeed on that point), but reallocations of Special Capital to individuals were taxable as miscellaneous income under s687 ITTOIA and, alternatively, chargeable under the sale-of-occupation rules in Part 13 ITA 2007; related discovery amendments and assessments were upheld. Some individual appeals succeeded for 2011/12 but most appeals for later years were dismissed as to the reallocated amounts.

Ryden Contractors Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 13 November 2020 This case concerns a late appeal against four Corporation Tax late-filing penalties totalling £578.46, where the appellant sought permission to admit notices of appeal filed many months after the statutory time limits. The tribunal found substantial unexplained delay and rejected the appellant's explanation (director's ill-health and inability to afford an accountant), refusing permission to admit the late appeals and dismissing the appeal. The decision notes the underlying CT return remained unfiled despite timely company accounts being filed at Companies House.

Kamran Qurban v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 12 November 2020 This appeal concerned penalties totalling £9,600 under Schedule 55 for late self‑assessment returns for tax years 2010/11–2015/16. The First‑tier Tribunal rejected a claim of “special circumstances” but found a limited reasonable excuse arising from the death of the taxpayer’s accountant in late 2017/early 2018, cancelling specific penalties for that period while upholding the remainder. The Tribunal held the other personal and representative difficulties did not suffice to avoid penalties or to justify a wider reduction.

Gary Borg v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 6 October 2020 This appeal challenged Schedule 41 FA 2008 penalties for failure to notify liability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge for 2013/14–2016/17. The Tribunal found the penalties correctly calculated, that HMRC applied the maximum statutory discounts, and that the appellant did not establish a reasonable excuse for failing to notify; the appeal was dismissed. The Tribunal also held it lacked jurisdiction to revisit wider questions of HMRC policy or statutory interest.

Alan Cockburn v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 5 October 2020 This appeal challenged failure-to-notify penalties under Schedule 41 FA 2008 for not informing HMRC of liability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for tax years 2013/14–2016/17. The First-tier Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that he did not receive HMRC's August 2013 letter, was unaware of the charge, and acted promptly when later notified in 2019, and it allowed the appeal, cancelling the penalties.

Wickford Development Co Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 5 October 2020 Wickford Development appealed VAT assessments disallowing input tax on bespoke fitted window blinds supplied and installed in new homes. The Tribunal found the blinds were incorporated into the buildings, were "goods of a description ordinarily incorporated by builders in a building of that description" within Note 22, did not fall within the Note 22 exclusions, and set the assessments aside allowing recovery of the input tax. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's witnesses and evidence and rejected HMRC's guidance on the point.

Sajmir Kera v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 17 September 2020 This appeal concerned late payment penalties under Schedule 56 FA 2009. HMRC conceded the 2016–17 penalties so that part of the appeal succeeded, but the Tribunal upheld the £284 penalty for 2017–18, finding no reasonable excuse covering the whole default period and no basis to reduce the penalty. Interest was confirmed as payable.

Jagvinder Takhar t/a Golden Fry v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 336 (TC) 13 September 2020 This appeal concerned whether Mr Takhar should have been VAT-registered from 1 January 2009, the VAT due for 1/1/2009–31/7/2013, and a late challenge to an £8,590 penalty. The Tribunal found he was properly registered from 1 January 2009, dismissed retrospective cancellation, struck out parts of the appeal about HMRC’s handling of an Error Correction Notice for lack of jurisdiction, and refused to admit the late penalty appeal; the overall appeal was dismissed and the penalty remains payable.

Christine Noble v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 15 October 2019 This case concerns Christine Noble's out-of-time appeals against HMRC Schedule 55 late self-assessment penalties where she notified HMRC of appeals well beyond the statutory deadline. The Tribunal applied the Denton three-stage test, found the delay serious and unexplained, refused permission to pursue the out-of-time appeals, and struck the appeals out without deciding substantive merits. The appellant retains rights to seek full written findings and to appeal within the prescribed time.

Spring Capital Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 425 (TC) 24 April 2019 Spring Capital appealed HMRC's closure notice re‑characterising £3,454,913 as income and a related penalty and applied for costs under Tribunal Rule 10 after HMRC late withdrew its substantive defence. The Tribunal found items 8(b) of HMRC's information request sought documents that did not exist but that Spring Capital had failed to provide the information required by item 8(c) in a timely way; although the appellant obtained a late concession, HMRC had been entitled to continue the enquiry and was effectively successful. The appellant's costs application was refused.

Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs v Connaught Corporate Solutions Limited 5 November 2018 This case concerns HMRC's use of s313 DOTAS information notices to an introducer, Connaught Corporate Solutions Ltd, after HMRC suspected the company had introduced taxpayers to a notifiable remuneration-trust scheme. The First and Second notices were only partially and belatedly complied with, and the First and Revised Second notices attracted penalties of £4,000 and £3,000 respectively; the Third notice was complied with in time and no penalty was imposed. The Tribunal held it had jurisdiction to assess whether HMRC's statutory preconditions (that it "suspected" the person was an introducer and the proposal may be notifiable) were met and that HMRC reasonably formed that suspicion. It also held that multiple s313 notices for continuing dissemination are permissible.

Tesfanichael Weldu Gilankiel v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 29 March 2017 This appeal concerned civil evasion penalties imposed after 9,800 cigarettes were found in a locked suitcase Mr Gilankiel pushed through the green channel. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that he did not know the suitcase contained cigarettes and did not act dishonestly, and therefore allowed the appeal and cancelled the penalties.

European Food Brokers Limited Whittalls Wines Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 27 February 2017 HMRC applied for short in-time extensions to serve two outstanding witness statements in appeals challenging revocations of WOWGR privileges; the Tribunal allowed the extensions (Pitt to 20 Jan 2017; Lewis to 13 Feb 2017) and made consequential case management directions. The central issue was whether in-time extension applications should be treated as relief from sanctions or determined under the Tribunal's overriding objective; the Tribunal held they are not equivalent and must be resolved by a balancing exercise of reasons, purpose of the time limit, delay length, and prejudice. The extensions were granted after weighing HMRC's explanations (leave and drafting) against the appellants' prejudice.

The Aquarius Film Company LLP & Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 20 October 2016 This case concerns whether Aquarius validly opted out of the Tribunal's default costs-shifting regime for three appeals (2011, two in 2013, and 2015), whether the Tribunal was required to extend the 28-day opt-out period for the 2013 appeals, and whether the appeals were consolidated. The Tribunal held that Aquarius Consultants was not shown to be a valid "legal representative" so the Tribunal had no obligation to serve the December 2013 allocation letters on it; the 2011, 2013 and 2015 appeals remained separate (case-managed together but not consolidated); Keystone Law's 9 June 2016 opt-outs were valid for the 2011 and 2015 appeals; and the Tribunal had power to extend the 28-day opt-out period but declined to do so for the 2013 appeals, leaving costs exposure for those 2013 appeals.

S A Battu v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 8 August 2016 This case is an appeal against a £100 late-filing penalty under FA 2009 for the 2013–14 self-assessment return. HMRC had sent notices and a tax calculation showing an underpayment after the appellant had changed jobs and effectively received two personal allowances; the appellant said he was PAYE‑paid, did not receive correspondence and did not understand the liability. The Tribunal found HMRC’s correspondence had been sent to the appellant’s normal address, that no reasonable excuse for non‑submission was shown, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty.

Gala Leisure Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 14 October 2015 Gala Leisure Ltd appealed for repayment of over-declared VAT relating to mechanised cash bingo and main stage bingo where the VAT had been accounted for by a group's representative member but generated by a member who later left the still-extant VAT group. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that UK grouping law implements the EU "single taxable person" fiction through the representative member, who ordinarily holds the statutory right to claim repayment; only in narrow cases where repayment via the representative member is impossible or excessively difficult will a generating member have an EU-law remedy. Gala was given permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.

V Group International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 14 September 2015 This appeal challenged a 10% VAT default surcharge (£12,800.26) for period 12/14, arguing non‑receipt of a surcharge‑period extension notice, that a CHAPS bank delay was a reasonable excuse, and that the surcharge was disproportionate. The Tribunal found the extension notice had been received (inferred from earlier conduct), the appellant produced no evidence of timely instructions to the bank so had no reasonable excuse, and the surcharge was not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

Mrs Sau Kwan Huan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 626 (TC) 22 September 2011 Mrs Sau Kwan Huan applied under s 28A TMA for a direction requiring HMRC to issue a closure notice for her 2008–09 income tax self-assessment. HMRC had opened an enquiry following VAT test-purchase evidence suggesting understated takeaway sales and sought further information; unanswered questions about turnover and related adjustments meant HMRC could not form a judgment on the 2008–09 tax liability. The First-tier Tribunal refused the s 28A application as premature.

The Cove Fish & Chip Restaurant Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 625 (TC) 22 September 2011 The Cove Fish & Chip Restaurant Ltd appealed HMRC penalties of £700 for filing its 2009/10 P35 late (due 19 May 2010, filed online 30 November 2010). The company relied on a stressed bookkeeper who had told them the forms were filed; the Tribunal accepted the bookkeeper was under stress but found the appellant did not establish a "reasonable excuse" under s.118(2) TMA and had not shown it took all reasonable steps. The penalties were confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

The Wallis Company v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 623 (TC) 20 September 2011 The Wallis Company appealed HMRC penalties for late filing a P35 return after online submissions on 17 May 2010 failed to be received. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that error messages had been shown on both attempts, so the Appellant should have known the returns had failed, and rejected claims of reasonable excuse and financial hardship. Penalties of £400 were confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

J P Commodities Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 622 (TC) 16 September 2011 J P Commodities Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to repay £673,493.65 input VAT for five export deals, which HMRC alleged were connected to MTIC/carousel fraud. The First-tier Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that related trading chains involving P&M, JSR and PF Williams involved tax losses and that Commodities (through Mr Johal) knew or ought to have known the transactions were connected with fraud. The Tribunal concluded Commodities' due diligence was largely window-dressing and dismissed the appeal; costs were reserved.

Cumbria County Council v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 621 (TC) 15 September 2011 Cumbria County Council supplied services to DEFRA during the 2001 foot-and-mouth outbreak, invoiced circa £5.55m (ex VAT), and accounted for VAT; many invoices were later resolved by a 27 March 2007 settlement for £200,000 "inclusive of VAT". The Tribunal rejected CCC's claim for bad‑debt relief (finding it time‑barred or misconceived) but held that the 2007 settlement operated as a decrease in consideration under regulation 38, permitting CCC to adjust its VAT and recover overpaid VAT. The Tribunal therefore allowed CCC's alternative claim under reg.38 and gave parties leave to apply for permission to appeal.

Mr Sajaad Hussain v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 620 (TC) 14 September 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC regulation 80 determinations for unpaid PAYE and Class 1 NICs against Mr Hussain, proprietor of The Balti King, where records were incomplete and HMRC relied on enquiries, unannounced visits and covert surveillance. The Tribunal found the HMRC officer acted bona fide and on sufficient material, rejected the appellant's evasive account, recalculated liabilities using reduced assumed unaccounted hours and other adjustments, and allowed the appeal in part with substantially reduced assessments for 2005/06–2007/08 and NICs varied to £7,172.84.

Blaze Group Holdings Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 616 (TC) 7 September 2011 This appeal challenged VAT default surcharges for three quarters where returns were not submitted. The Tribunal found that a longtime employee, Helen Clark, had maliciously intercepted HMRC communications and authorised payments, thereby causing the defaults. The Tribunal held her conduct amounted to an exceptional circumstance and a reasonable excuse, and allowed the appeal, cancelling the surcharges.

Mr A J Clark v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 619 (TC) 7 September 2011 This appeal concerned whether two properties, 60 Nayland Road and 58a Nayland Road, qualified as the appellant's only or main residence so as to attract Principal Private Residence (PPR) relief. The Tribunal found the appellant's contemporaneous evidence credible and concluded he intended to live permanently at 60 Nayland Road and later at 58a Nayland Road while developing it, so both properties qualified for PPR relief. The appeal was allowed and PPR relief granted for both properties.

Mrs H Paneser v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 615 (TC) 7 September 2011 This appeal challenged a late payment surcharge assessed after a 2009 paper tax return showed a liability of £8,934.99 and a due date of 31 January 2010. The appellant did not attend the hearing, failed to comply with directions to produce evidence of job loss, financial difficulty or correspondence with her accountant, and the Tribunal found no reasonable excuse for late payment. The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant’s absence, concluded she had been notified, and dismissed the appeal.

Mrs Ruth Orme v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 618 (TC) 7 September 2011 Mrs Orme appealed HMRC's treatment of a £75,589.86 payment received on closure of her sub-post office. The First-tier Tribunal held the payment was properly taxable as compensation for loss of office under ITEPA s.401 (subject to the £30,000 exemption), and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also found HMRC validly opened a late enquiry by reason of a "discovery" under the TMA.

TLC Incentives Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 617 (TC) 7 September 2011 TLC Incentives Ltd appealed a VAT default surcharge (£3,172.91) imposed for late payment of the 01/11 VAT period, attributing the delay to problems implementing a new accounting system that produced inaccurate returns until data was re-imported. The First-tier Tribunal found there was no reasonable excuse, holding the company should have contacted HMRC, obtained an authorised estimated return, or made payments on account to mitigate the surcharge. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge upheld.

Pickquick Carriers Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 553 (TC) 17 August 2011 Pickquick Carriers appealed a £400 penalty for filing their 2009–2010 P35 online four months late. The Tribunal held that reliance on the company's book-keeper did not constitute a "reasonable excuse" and that the fixed month-by-month penalty was not disproportionate, even though the tax due had been paid. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

Mr G B Forbes v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 425 (TC) 29 June 2011 Mr Forbes appealed HMRC amendments and discovery assessments arising from capital allowances claimed on a boat‑charter business. The Tribunal found he carried on a single boat‑charter trade comprising both bare‑boat (unskippered) hire and skippered (service) charters, upheld HMRC’s discovery assessments for 2003–2005, and held that capital‑allowance‑derived losses must be restricted to the extent they relate to provision of plant or machinery for leasing (the bare‑boat element). The appeal was partly allowed: losses are allowable only insofar as attributable to skippered charters, with the parties to agree a fair apportionment (the Tribunal gave example percentages).

Croftport Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 419 (TC) 28 June 2011 Croftport Ltd appealed assessments under the CIS Regulations after it paid T & S Joinery without deducting tax and without verifying their gross status with HMRC. The First-tier Tribunal found Croftport had failed to comply with regulation 6(4) (verification was required) but concluded Croftport took reasonable care and acted in good faith in relying on documentary evidence and HMRC publicity. As a result the assessment of £17,593.40 and penalty of £1,759 were disapplied and the appeal allowed.

Grant Vehicle Repairs Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 420 (TC) 28 June 2011 Grant Vehicle Repairs Ltd appealed a 5% VAT surcharge for an eight-day late payment for period 08/10. The Tribunal found the company and its witnesses genuine but rejected that the short delay caused by the bookkeeper forgetting to send a cheque, a surprise holiday, or alleged non-receipt of warnings amounted to a "reasonable excuse." The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge upheld.

St Peter's Travel Limited(1) St Peter's Executive Travel Limited (2) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 422 (TC) 28 June 2011 This Tribunal decision records that HMRC accepted certain amendments in its 9 March 2011 letter, agreed a reduction at the hearing, and the Tribunal found a further reduction (see para 19(2)); the decision mirrors those agreed and Tribunal-ordered reductions. The decision notice contains full findings and was signed by Barbara J King on 28 June 2011. Parties have a right to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 within 56 days of service of the decision.

William Oswald v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 421 (TC) 28 June 2011 This is an appeal by Mr William Oswald against a 10% default surcharge (£676.18) for late VAT payment for period 09/10. The tribunal accepted he was a credible witness who genuinely confused the payment date with a date shown on an EC Sales List form, but concluded that confusion did not amount to a "reasonable excuse." The appeal was refused and the surcharge upheld.

Explainaway Limited Quartfed Limited Parastream Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 414 (TC) 24 June 2011 This appeal concerned a pre-arranged series of derivative and financing steps undertaken by Explainaway and related companies to mitigate a chargeable gain on WRG shares, and HMRC’s disallowance of the resulting losses and interest debits. The Tribunal held that the derivative contracts entered in 2001 and 2002 gave rise to real chargeable gains or allowable losses for TCGA purposes, but the loss on the artificial disposal of Quoform shares was not an allowable capital loss and interest debits on the loan relationships were disallowed under para 13, Sch 9 FA 1996. Appeals were allowed in part and otherwise dismissed.

G Pratt & Sons v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 416 (TC) 24 June 2011 This appeal concerned whether resurfacing a 280m farm drive (239m resurfaced) was a capital replacement or a revenue repair for G Pratt & Sons. The Tribunal found the work—removing the top tarmac, using broken-up material for sub-base, adding a new concrete surface and some kerbing, without widening or increasing load capacity—was a repair, not renewal of an entirety. The appeal was allowed and the disputed £23,300 deduction was accepted, with partnership profit adjusted to £18,246 after agreed additions.

Impossible TV Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 413 (TC) 24 June 2011 Impossible TV Ltd appealed a 5% default VAT surcharge of £3,044.05 for the period 12/09, challenging service of earlier surcharge notices, claiming a reasonable excuse for late payment, and arguing disproportionate sanction. The Tribunal found the statutory "last or usual" address in s.98 VATA refers to the taxpayer's last actual place of business, concluded on the evidence that at least one earlier notice and the 13 Nov 2009 SLEN were received, rejected the appellant's unsubstantiated online banking excuse, and held the 5% surcharge was correctly applied. The appeal was dismissed.

John Brady v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 415 (TC) 24 June 2011 This appeal concerned late‑payment surcharges (and associated interest) assessed on Mr Brady for 2006–07 to 2008–09 after a PAYE coding error led to under‑deduction of tax. The First‑tier Tribunal allowed Mr Brady's appeal and set aside all surcharges (and interest on those surcharges), finding he had a reasonable excuse both before discovery (reasonable reliance on PAYE deductions) and after discovery (genuine belief he had arranged time to pay with HMRC). The statutory interest on the unpaid tax itself was confirmed as payable and was not disturbed.

Marlen Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 411 (TC) 24 June 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Hughes, supplied to JCB via his company Marlen Ltd and an agency, was an employee of JCB for IR35 purposes. The First-tier Tribunal found there was no mutuality of obligation and the degree of control was insufficient for employment, and on balance other factors were neutral or slightly pointed to self‑employment. The Tribunal allowed Marlen Ltd's appeal and did not uphold the IR35 determinations for the periods considered.

Naresh Chauhan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 412 (TC) 24 June 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments and penalties after the taxpayer failed to notify self‑employment and primary records were absent. The Tribunal found HMRC proved loss attributable to the appellant so extended time limits applied, accepted HMRC’s estimation approach using VAT returns (with RPI carry‑back) but made specific adjustments to trading profits, partnership allocations, rental income and a chargeable gain, and substituted lower penalties and revised tax/NIC figures. Interest on earlier years was left to HMRC to calculate.

The Company of the Plumed Horse Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 417 (TC) 24 June 2011 The Company of the Plumed Horse Ltd appealed two £200 flat‑rate penalties for late corporation tax returns for periods ending 31 Oct 2007 and 31 Oct 2008, arguing the defaults were caused by the deaths and illness affecting their two‑partner audit practice. The First‑tier Tribunal rejected that plea, finding the company had no reasonable excuse throughout the defaults and had failed to take steps (such as instructing new auditors or submitting estimated returns). The appeal was dismissed and the penalties upheld.

The Horseshoe Inn and Lodge Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 418 (TC) 24 June 2011 The Horseshoe Inn and Lodge Ltd appealed penalties for very late Corporation Tax returns for periods ending 31 Oct 2007 and 31 Oct 2008, filed on 6 Aug 2010 (defaults of 644 and 279 days). The company blamed its auditors' serious illnesses and deaths as a reasonable excuse, but the tribunal held the company remained responsible for filing, did not act without unreasonable delay once the alleged excuse ended, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalties.

Westland Geoprojects Holdings) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 408 (TC) 23 June 2011 This appeal concerned whether Westland Geoprojects submitted the required C99 bill of discharge after importing goods under Inward Processing Relief on 22 June 2007 and whether its failures amounted to “obvious negligence” under Article 859 so as to preclude cancellation of a C18 customs debt. The Tribunal found no evidence that a C99 was sent or received and that the appellant’s conduct, including disregarding reminders and a history of late submissions, amounted to obvious negligence. The appeal was dismissed and the C18 debt of £1,707.02 was confirmed.

John J Duffy v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 405 (TC) 22 June 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of the appellant's gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme after six late tax payments in 2008/2009. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove a "reasonable excuse" for the late PAYE and Self Assessment payments, rejecting personal investment decisions and uncertain overdraft availability as excuses. The appeal was dismissed.

Kinlet Properties Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 403 (TC) 22 June 2011 Kinlet Properties appealed a £400 penalty for filing their 2009/10 P35 late (due 19 May 2010; filed online 15 October 2010). The appellant's director admitted forgetting to file and relied on absence of reminders and alleged HMRC computer downtime. The First-tier Tribunal found no reasonable excuse under s.118(2) TMA, held HMRC was not obliged to send reminders and that published employer guidance gave notice of the filing obligation. The appeal was dismissed and the £400 penalty confirmed.

McGeown International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 407 (TC) 22 June 2011 McGeown International Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to restore a lorry and trailer seized at Dover carrying about 4.25 million cigarettes concealed under apples. HMRC’s review officer concluded the haulier was likely complicit after finding inconsistencies and likely fraudulent carriage documents; the First-tier Tribunal found that conclusion reasonable and that the appellant had not discharged the onus of proving it was not responsible or complicit. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal.

Peter Devine v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 404 (TC) 22 June 2011 This is an appeal by Peter Devine against HMRC discovery assessments for the years to 5 April 2004 and 5 April 2003, based on bank lodgements exceeding vouched CIS income. The tribunal found unexplained excess lodgements of £4,450 for 2003/04 and that the appellant failed to prove those lodgements were from non-business sources (insurance proceeds or gifts). The tribunal upheld the discovery assessments (with the earlier year scaled back by RPI) and dismissed the appeal.

Tallington Lakes Ltd Tallington Holdings Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 402 (TC) 22 June 2011 This appeal concerned penalties imposed by HMRC on Tallington Lakes Ltd and Tallington Holdings Ltd for failure to comply with production notices served during 2008–2009 corporation tax enquiries. The Tribunal found the notices valid (as confirmed by the General Commissioners), that the appellants did not genuinely comply or make reasonable efforts (relying unconvincingly on a former, ill accountant), and upheld the fixed and daily penalties. The appeals were dismissed and the daily penalties remain potentially continuing until cooperation.

Wilsons of Rathkenny Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 406 (TC) 22 June 2011 Wilsons of Rathkenny Ltd appealed HMRC's rejection of a Fleming-type VAT reclaim for £20,374 said to relate to a Carrickfergus trading site. The Tribunal found the Carrickfergus activity had been under a separate VAT registration which was not identified in the appellant's 30 March 2009 communication, so that communication constituted a new, distinct claim rather than an amendment to the earlier claim and was therefore out of time. The appeal was dismissed.

Dean Nightingale v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 400 (TC) 21 June 2011 This appeal concerned a £120.58 default surcharge for late payment of 2008–09 income tax after the appellant filed online. The appellant argued the online filing system misleadingly allowed selection of PAYE-code collection and so provided a reasonable excuse for late payment; HMRC contemporaneous notes recorded a 2 February 2010 call about a time-to-pay arrangement. The Tribunal found as fact that by 2 February the appellant knew the tax would not be collected via PAYE and he failed to pay by 28 February, so there was no reasonable excuse and the surcharge was confirmed.

Mertrux Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 398 (TC) 21 June 2011 Mertrux sold its Mercedes dealership business and treated the excess of the sale price over tangible assets as goodwill, claiming roll‑over relief. HMRC disallowed half the claim, treating part of the Territory Release Payment (TRP) as compensation for surrender of dealer rights. The Tribunal found the whole excess was payment for goodwill, that the goodwill founded on the dealer agreement transferred to the purchaser, and allowed the appeal, discharging HMRC’s amendment.

Neshama Music Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 399 (TC) 21 June 2011 This appeal concerned a 10% VAT default surcharge of £1,147.84 imposed on Neshama Music Ltd for a payment five days late (due 7 Jan 2009, paid 12 Jan 2009) as the third default in a surcharge period. The tribunal found the appellant did not have a "reasonable excuse" under s.59(7) VATA — staff holiday, preparer unavailability and family illness did not, on the evidence, amount to a reasonable excuse — and upheld the surcharge as not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

Sohail Shahzad v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 397 (TC) 20 June 2011 This case concerned Mr Sohail Shahzad’s late appeal against HMRC’s maintenance of surcharges for 2005/06 and 2006/07 and related complaints about interest. The FTT granted consent to admit the late appeal but held it had no jurisdiction to determine complaints about interest under s.86 TMA, and dismissed the appeal on surcharges because Mr Shahzad had no reasonable excuse for late payment. The tribunal confined its formal decision to the surcharges as adjusted and noted interest issues were not for it.

Mrs Denise Williams v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 396 (TC) 17 June 2011 Mrs Williams filed late self-assessment returns and paid the tax on 31 July 2009; HMRC’s 14 August 2009 letter said the returns would be treated "for all purposes" as if delivered in response to a notice. The Tribunal held that the letter could prevent late filing penalties but did not change the statutory due date for payment of tax, so s59(4) applied (tax due 31 January) and late-payment surcharges and interest remained payable; the appeal was dismissed except that one 5% surcharge for 2007–08 was conceded by HMRC and removed.

Darren Demetriou v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 394 (TC) 15 June 2011 This case concerns whether a partner, Mr Demetriou, was chargeable to income tax on his share of partnership profits that were not paid in cash but applied by the firm in set-off against liabilities arising from his misapplied client funds, and whether sums used in set-off were deductible. The Tribunal allowed a one-month-late appeal, held Mr Demetriou liable to tax on the profit shares because they were sums to which he was entitled and were applied to discharge his liabilities (a receipt/benefit), and rejected the contested deductions for lack of evidence. The 2005/06 self-assessment was increased to £20,357.09.

Reddleman Properties Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 395 (TC) 15 June 2011 Reddleman Properties Ltd appealed HMRC’s amendment treating it as a Close Investment-Holding Company (CIHC) for the year to 31 December 2008, which increased its corporation tax. The tribunal accepted the directors’ evidence of an intention to acquire third‑party lettings but held that, judged objectively for 2008, the company’s purpose was still mainly to provide premises for a connected company (Reid & Fraser Ltd). The appeal was dismissed, HMRC’s amendment was confirmed, and Reddleman’s request for anonymity was refused.

Edgeskill Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 393 (TC) 14 June 2011 Edgeskill Limited appealed HMRC's refusal to allow input VAT of £15,294,335 on 93 mobile‑phone transactions in 03/06, 04/06 and 06/06. The Tribunal found there had been fraudulent VAT losses in the relevant chains (including Uni‑Brand’s contra‑trading) and that Edgeskill’s transactions were connected to those frauds. On the totality of the evidence (money flows, documentary anomalies, commercial relationships and practices) the Tribunal concluded Edgeskill knew or should have known of the connection and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC’s refusals.

MR Giles Davis v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 391 (TC) 14 June 2011 This appeal concerned a Schedule 24 penalty imposed on Mr Davis for a careless omission of employment income shown on his P60 from his 2008–09 self-assessment. The Tribunal found the return contained a careless inaccuracy but that "special circumstances" existed because the inaccuracy was readily detectable from employer filings, and reduced the penalty from 15% (£703) to 7.5% (£351.50). The liability for a penalty was upheld.

Andrew Sanguinetti t/a A S Construction v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 389 (TC) 10 June 2011 This case concerns Mr Andrew Sanguinetti’s appeal against a £72.03 (5%) late payment surcharge after he paid 2008–09 tax 23 days beyond the 28‑day allowance. The Tribunal found the online return filed 15 September 2009 put him on notice of the tax due and deadline, and that his unemployment/economic difficulty did not constitute a reasonable excuse because he did not contact HMRC or propose a payment arrangement. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge confirmed.

Brian Turnbull v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 388 (TC) 10 June 2011 HMRC treated Mr Gurdeep Singh Bhangal as an employee of Mr Brian Turnbull for tax/NIC purposes; Turnbull appealed. The Tribunal preferred Turnbull's evidence, found there was no mutuality of obligation and that any control over Bhangal was exercised by Hanson (a third party) rather than by Turnbull, and concluded Bhangal was not Turnbull's employee, allowing the appeal.

Darren Lee Roberts v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 385 (TC) 10 June 2011 Mr Roberts had timely appeals to HMRC against tax assessments and a related penalty but failed to notify the First-tier Tribunal within the 30‑day statutory period after procedural changes in 2009. The Tribunal exercised its discretion under TMA s49H(3) and granted permission to notify the late appeals, directing that the tax assessment appeals be heard and allowing the related penalty appeal due to its connection to the tax issues.

Graham Roth t/a Phillips Roth & Company v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 386 (TC) 10 June 2011 Mr Graham Roth appealed three VAT default surcharges for periods 08/07, 02/08 and 02/09. The Tribunal found he was in default because the returns were signed late and received late and VAT was paid late or unpaid, that his explanations did not amount to reasonable excuses (losses of an associated company were unconnected in time/causation), and dismissed all appeals while upholding the surcharge extension notices.

The Honourable Society of Middle Temple v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 390 (TC) 10 June 2011 Middle Temple recharged unmetered cold water to its commercial tenants and separately invoiced a "Cold Water Charge" while granting leases. The Tribunal had to decide whether the water recharge formed a single supply with the lease (subject to an option to tax) or was a separate supply. Applying tests of economic divisibility and ancillary supply, the Tribunal concluded the water charge was a separate, mutually divisible supply and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal also noted that treating the water as taxable rent would risk an unjustified fiscal distortion.

Waring Investments Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 387 (TC) 10 June 2011 Waring Investments failed to deliver its P35 return by the 20 May 2010 deadline and did not successfully file online until 2 August 2010. The Tribunal found there was no reasonable excuse for the delay and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty determination (which the Tribunal treated as arising under the existing TMA/regulation 73 delivery regime rather than the new online-specific penalty regulation).

CV Staff Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 384 (TC) 9 June 2011 This appeal concerned VAT default surcharges for three periods where the appellant relied on BACS payments leaving its bank as the reason returns/payments were late. The Tribunal held the appellant failed to show a "reasonable excuse" under s59(7) VATA 1954 because it did not allow for BACS clearing times or HMRC rules about weekend due dates, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the surcharge liability period extensions and surcharges.

Daytona Surf Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 383 (TC) 9 June 2011 Daytona Surf Ltd appealed HMRC disallowances of VAT input tax claims across periods including 10/07, 04/08 and 07/09. The Tribunal found amounts dated after 10/07 were correctly excluded from that period, sums shown as VAT on invoices from non‑VAT‑registered suppliers were not recoverable as input tax, and 04/08 claims were properly reduced for lack of independent payment evidence and under s26A (failure to show payment within six months). Appeals were dismissed and the appellant’s costs application refused.

Hearthstead Homes v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 382 (TC) 9 June 2011 This appeal concerned penalties for late filing of a 2008/2009 partnership tax return. The taxpayers (Mr and Mrs Ali, per the notes) argued they had a reasonable excuse because the related company had gone into administration and they assumed the administrators would file the return, and they also relied on incorrect HMRC telephone advice; the Tribunal held those matters did not provide a continuing reasonable excuse and dismissed the appeal.

Mr David Sherratt and Mrs Elizabeth Sherratt v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 381 (TC) 9 June 2011 The Sherratts appealed HMRC's refusal to refund £13,082.81 VAT on a self‑built farmhouse under the DIY builders scheme. The Tribunal found planning condition 10 (and condition 9 in reserved matters) prohibited separate sale, lease or disposal of the farmhouse apart from the remainder of the farm. Because Note 2(2)(c) was therefore not satisfied, the farmhouse did not qualify and the appeal was dismissed.

Paul Anthony Bell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 379 (TC) 9 June 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Bell was an employee of Marshall Errock Construction Ltd (MECL) on 13 June 2005 for industrial injuries/secondary contributor purposes. The Tribunal found the written contract and surrounding facts described a contract for services and that site supervision and prescribed hours did not amount to the degree of control required for employment. The appeal against HMRC's decision was dismissed and Mr Bell was held to be self‑employed on that date.

Shaw Cleaning Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 378 (TC) 9 June 2011 This appeal concerned whether Shaw Cleaning Services and its partners satisfied the Schedule 11 compliance test for gross payment status under the CIS, following late payment of personal income tax liabilities. The Tribunal held the partnership and each partner failed the compliance test, finding no reasonable excuse for the late payments and that time to pay arrangements were not in force before the due dates so the late payments could not be ignored. The appeal was dismissed.

Brijesh J Patel v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 373 (TC) 8 June 2011 Mr Patel, a dentist, appealed HMRC’s amendment removing enterprise zone capital allowances from his Class 4 NICs computation for 2006/07. The tribunal found that, as a matter of NIC statute, EZ allowances cannot be set against profits for Class 4 NICs, dismissed the appeal, and upheld HMRC’s closure notice. The tribunal also held it had no jurisdiction to enforce alleged legitimate expectations (which must be pursued by judicial review) and alternatively found no enforceable legitimate expectation on the facts.

Champion Scaffolding Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 375 (TC) 8 June 2011 Champion Scaffolding Ltd failed to file eleven CIS monthly returns on time after its bookkeeper/administrator ceased acting; HMRC assessed penalties which had been partly reduced and the company appealed. The Tribunal found that reliance on the bookkeeper did not itself constitute a "reasonable excuse" for late filing and that it had no power to reduce the statutory penalties further, so the appeal was dismissed.

Kelmendi GmbH v UK Border Agency [2011] UKFTT 377 (TC) 8 June 2011 Kelmendi GmbH appealed UK Border Agency’s refusal to restore 13,099.20 litres of seized beer, arguing it had relied on the consignee/freight forwarder and had taken due steps. The First-tier Tribunal found the UKBA’s decision to refuse restoration was within the range of reasonable decisions, that the appellant had not shown exceptional circumstances or adequate due diligence, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also found insufficient evidence to establish complicity on the balance of probabilities, but this did not alter the result.

Mr & Mrs Tapsell & Mr Lester (as Partnership "The Granleys" v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 376 (TC) 8 June 2011 The Granleys appealed HMRC’s amendment disallowing £106,014 of claimed capital allowances after their December 2003 purchase of The Haven. The Tribunal held the appellants bore the burden of proving the vendors had not already claimed allowances and, on the balance of probabilities, found the vendors likely had claimed, so the appellants’ claim was disallowed and the appeal dismissed.

Mr David Mond v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 374 (TC) 8 June 2011 This case concerns Mr David Mond's application for permission to bring a late appeal against a penalty surcharge notice for 2007/08 under s.49(2)(b) TMA; the 2008/09 surcharge had been cancelled. The Tribunal, considering submissions about misdirected mail, bereavement, workload and health, granted permission to appeal out of time (47 days late) after weighing factors and finding no specific prejudice to HMRC, although the decision was finely balanced.

Ian Phillips v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 372 (TC) 7 June 2011 The Tribunal allowed Mr Phillips' appeal against HMRC's refusal of a DIY builders VAT refund for Ardachy, finding that planning and Section 75 occupancy conditions that restrict who may live in the house were occupational/personal restrictions rather than prohibitions on "separate use." Accordingly Note 2(c) of Group 5, Schedule 8 did not exclude Ardachy and the claim met the statutory requirements in principle; quantum remains to be determined separately.

Mr Tomislav Kljun v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 371 (TC) 3 June 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Kljun’s earnings from work aboard vessels operating in UK waters were taxable in the UK or exempt under Article 15 of the UK–Yugoslavia Double Taxation Treaty. The Tribunal found that although Mr Kljun’s contract employer was BUE Cyprus Ltd, the UK company VOSL was the economic employer who benefited from and bore the risks of his services, so Article 15 relief did not apply. The amended UK assessments for 2006/07 and 2008/09 were confirmed and the appeals were dismissed.

Truebell Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 370 (TC) 3 June 2011 This preliminary hearing addressed whether the First-tier Tribunal could make findings inconsistent with the European Commission's 4 July 2008 Decision denying remission of duties and which origin rules govern imported CFLs. The Tribunal held it was bound by the Commission's Decision where HMRC had transmitted a dossier under the implementing rules (Articles 871/905) and that non‑preferential origin rules in the Customs Code govern the origin question for anti‑dumping purposes. The Tribunal also found HMRC was obliged to submit the dossier to the Commission.

Black Pearl Entertainments Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 368 (TC) 2 June 2011 Black Pearl sought permission to appeal out of time against HMRC's 17 January 2007 refusal of a VAT repayment claim relating to gaming machine takings. The Tribunal found the appellant had intentionally failed to pursue known appeal routes and time limits, the long unexplained delay would prejudice HMRC and the administration of justice, and therefore refused permission to admit the late appeal. The appeal was not admitted.

Enviroengineering Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 366 (TC) 2 June 2011 Enviroengineering Ltd was restored to the Companies Register after being struck off; it sought to challenge VAT returns submitted in 2000–2001 as based on false invoices and to claim relief, but the Tribunal struck the company’s appeal out as having no reasonable prospect of success because statutory time limits in the VAT Regulations barred correction of the old returns or claims for bad debt relief. The Tribunal also found HMRC’s non‑attendance at an earlier hearing unreasonable and ordered HMRC to pay wasted costs of £150 and travel expenses of £22.50.

Joan McPhail v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 369 (TC) 2 June 2011 Mrs McPhail appealed HMRC’s record that she elected to pay the Married Women’s reduced-rate National Insurance from 2 September 1974 and was liable for reduced-rate Class I contributions from 6 April 1975 to 5 April 1979. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that she did make the election, relying on detailed contemporaneous HMRC records, refund authorisations and payment adjustments, and dismissed her appeal. The absence of the original signed CF9 (destroyed under retention policy) did not undermine HMRC’s case.

Mr D P Hyde t/a Pentagon Software v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 367 (TC) 2 June 2011 This case concerns an application by Mr D P Hyde (trading as Pentagon Software) for an extension of time to appeal VAT assessments notified in August 2000. The Tribunal refused to extend time after finding an inordinate (about eight-and-a-half year) and inadequately explained delay, and that prejudice to HMRC and legal certainty weighed against granting an extension. The appeal was therefore not admitted.

Flashpoint Technology Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 353 (TC) 1 June 2011 Flashpoint sought repayment of input VAT for 03/06 on zero-rated CPU exports; HMRC refused, alleging the purchases were connected to MTIC-type fraud. The tribunal found the deal chains led to fraudulent defaults, that Flashpoint's transactions were connected to those chains, and that the directors did not take reasonable precautions and therefore knew or ought to have known of the connection. The appeal was dismissed and Flashpoint ordered to pay HMRC's costs.

Mr Gary Knapper v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 365 (TC) 1 June 2011 This appeal concerned two default surcharges under s.59 TMA for late payment of 2007/08 income tax. The appellant said unexpected termination and underpayment by a third party (Cubic Telecom) left him unable to pay despite reasonable conduct; HMRC did not attend hearings. The Tribunal found on the evidence that those third‑party events amounted to a reasonable excuse throughout the period of default and set aside both surcharges.

The Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 354 (TC) 1 June 2011 This appeal concerned whether green fees charged by Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club to non-members were VAT-exempt under Article 132(1)(m) of the Principal VAT Directive as implemented by Item 3 Group 10 Sch 9 VATA 1994. The Tribunal found the core supply — the right to play golf — is the same for members and non‑members and is therefore exempt under Article 132(1)(m); Article 134(b) did not exclude the green‑fee income because those fees were an integral, recurring part of the club’s activities and budget. The domestic statutory distinction limiting the exemption to members only was held not to correctly implement the Directive and was ineffective. The appeal was allowed on that basis, with parties able to apply to continue on subsidiary quantification issues.

Corporate Synergy International (in Liquidation) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 352 (TC) 31 May 2011 Corporate Synergy International (in liquidation) applied for an extension of time to appeal HMRC decisions of 12 December 2006 refusing large input VAT repayments. The Tribunal found the company was unaware of the decisions until March 2008 (excusing delay to that date) but culpable for delay from March 2008 to March 2010, and concluded HMRC and public interest in legal certainty were prejudiced by late disclosure of original documents. The application for an extension was refused and the out-of-time notice of appeal was struck out.

Abdul Noor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 349 (TC) 26 May 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC's disallowance of £3,628.39 input VAT on the ground the services were supplied more than six months before the appellant's VAT registration. The First-tier Tribunal accepted the appellant's account of clear oral NAS advice given after full disclosure, held the appellant had a legitimate expectation to recover the VAT, and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal also held it has jurisdiction under s.83 VATA to determine public law issues (legitimate expectation) when they are determinative of the amount of input tax.

Dransfield Novelty Company Limited & Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 26 May 2011 This tribunal considered whether electronic "virtual ticket" lottery terminals supplied to non‑profit members' clubs were "amusement machines" for the purposes of the Amusement Machine Licence Duty (AMLD) across four legislative periods between 2003 and 2009. It held the machines were dutiable only in Period 3 when a stand‑alone VAT Act definition applied; in Periods 1, 2 and 4 they did not rank as amusement machines (Periods 2 and 4 required clubs to meet Schedule 11 private society lottery conditions so that s.17's "tiebreaker" could exclude them). The tribunal thus limited AMLD liability to Period 3 and made findings relevant to repayment claims by Dransfield.

Paymex Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 350 (TC) 26 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether IVA-related services provided by Blair Endersby were standard-rated or VAT-exempt under Article 135(1)(d). The Tribunal found the services, taken as a single indivisible supply (negotiation concerning debts together with receipt/distribution of payments), fell within the Article 135(1)(d) exemption rather than being debt collection or separate taxable supplies. The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded to the appellant.

Mrs Ruth Holmes v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 347 (TC) 25 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mrs Holmes’s one-to-one nutritional services were zero-rated as “private tuition in a subject ordinarily taught in a school or university” under Schedule 9 Group 6 Item 2 VATA 1994. The Tribunal found that, although nutrition is a subject taught academically and Mrs Holmes gave some vocational lectures, the bulk of her activities were individualised consultation, analysis and advisory/therapeutic work rather than private tuition. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s decision to register her for VAT from 1 March 2002 was upheld.

Mrs Yvonne Lawson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 346 (TC) 25 May 2011 Mrs Lawson appealed HMRC’s closure notice and assessment that she alone was beneficial owner of 141 Southampton Road and liable for the full capital gains tax. The Tribunal accepted Mrs Lawson’s credible evidence that purchase funds and household finances were pooled and that both spouses treated the property as jointly owned. It found Mr and Mrs Lawson were equal beneficial owners and allowed the appeal, reversing HMRC’s conclusion of sole beneficial ownership.

McKenna Demolition Limited Mr Richard McKenna v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 344 (TC) 23 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether provision of successive company saloon cars and fuel to the managing director amounted to taxable car and fuel benefits and triggered a corresponding Class 1A NIC charge. The tribunal found Mr McKenna was the ordinary/main user, used the cars for voluntary private commuting (kept them overnight at home), was not “on call” in the statutory sense, and the saloons were neither vans nor pooled/emergency vehicles. Both the company’s appeal against Class 1A NIC determinations and penalties and Mr McKenna’s appeals against discovery assessments and penalties were dismissed.

ADM Glass v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 339 (TC) 20 May 2011 ADM Southern Ltd, already in the default surcharge regime, filed a VAT return for period 11/10 and paid by BACS; HMRC received the payment after the extended due date and imposed a 15% default surcharge. The tribunal held ADM did not have a reasonable excuse for late payment, noting prior HMRC correspondence had warned that BACS payments take at least three working days to clear. The appeal against the surcharge was dismissed.

E S G Security Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 336 (TC) 20 May 2011 E S G Security Ltd appealed a £2,519.06 PAYE surcharge imposed after at least three Default Notices for four late payments in 2007–08 and 2008–09. The Tribunal held that on an appeal under Regulation 204(5) the appellant may only challenge the number of defaults or the surcharge amount, not rely on a "reasonable excuse" which must be raised against individual Default Notices. The Tribunal found four Default Notices remained unwithdrawn, the statutory conditions for the surcharge were met, and confirmed the surcharge, dismissing the appeal.

Finnforest UK Limited, Card Protection Plan Limited, Exxonmobil Chemical Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 342 (TC) 20 May 2011 Three companies sought tribunal directions requiring HMRC to issue closure notices for corporation tax enquiries about cross-border group loss relief. The tribunal refused the closure applications, concluding it was not appropriate to order closure while factual and evidential inquiries remained and encouraged the parties to pursue a consensual para 31A referral on the discrete legal "Grouping Test." The tribunal also refused to reallocate the proceedings from the Basic to the Complex category.

Guarantee Protection Insurance Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 343 (TC) 20 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether 12.5% "Guarantee Premiums" charged under a scheme (GACS) were premiums "received under" the appellant's taxable insurance contracts for IPT purposes, or otherwise charged to the insured or received on the insurer's behalf so as to be caught by s.72(1A) or s.72(7) of Finance Act provisions. The Tribunal found the 12.5% sums were created and diverted by intermediaries without the insurer's authorisation and therefore were not payments received under the appellant's contracts, nor charged in connection with those contracts or received on the appellant's behalf. The appellant's appeal was allowed and the assessment set aside as to the contested amount.

Luxottica (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 338 (TC) 20 May 2011 Luxottica miskeyed a VAT payment leading to a one-working-day late receipt by HMRC; HMRC imposed a 2% default surcharge of £22,700 as a second default. The tribunal held Luxottica had no reasonable excuse (reliance on its bank did not qualify) and that the 2% surcharge was not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

M & J Plumbing v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 337 (TC) 20 May 2011 This case concerns an appeal against 31 fixed penalties imposed for late CIS returns for tax months July–December 2009. The Tribunal found the appellant had no reasonable excuse for the late submissions and, having regard to HMRC's mitigation of the total penalty from £3,100 to £1,900, held the reduced penalties were not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

Mark Higgins Rallying (a firm) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 340 (TC) 20 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether the partnership of Mark Higgins and Roy Dixon was controlled and managed wholly outside the UK for tax years 1998–99 to 2004–05, affecting taxation of Mr Higgins’ share of non‑UK profits. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that high‑level decisions were taken by Mr Dixon in the Isle of Man, that the partnership’s central management and control was wholly outside the UK, and allowed the appeals. The Tribunal also found no persuasive evidence that the partnership was an artificial tax‑avoidance arrangement.

Freshwater Systems and Services (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 364 (TC) 19 May 2011 Freshwater Systems appealed a £180 penalty for allegedly filing its 2009/10 P35 late. The appellant claimed online submission within the deadline but HMRC records showed no receipt or confirmation until 29 January 2011; the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that no return was received by the filing deadline, that no reasonable excuse was shown, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the £180 penalty.

Hoar Cross Parish Council v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 362 (TC) 19 May 2011 Hoar Cross Parish Council appealed a £206 penalty for late filing its P35 employer annual return for 2009/10, claiming the clerk had submitted it online by 19 May 2010 and seen an on‑screen success message. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that HMRC did not receive or confirm the return by the deadline, rejected the council's reasonable‑excuse plea, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the £206 penalty.

Janet Mary Spraggs v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 333 (TC) 19 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mrs Spraggs, on the balance of probabilities, had signed a CF9 declaration electing not to pay full National Insurance contributions from 1968–75 (with reduced rates thereafter), which HMRC said produced a reduced State Pension entitlement. The Tribunal accepted HMRC's recordkeeping evidence but found no direct evidence of a signed CF9 or RF1 election entry and, weighing all the evidence, concluded it was more likely she did not make the election. The appeal was allowed and HMRC's decision was set aside.

Neil Eatough v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 335 (TC) 19 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether director Neil Eatough could be personally assessed for £40,181 excise duty unpaid by Dexter Paints Ltd after he signed Form EX103A. The First-tier Tribunal held that the statutory scheme and regulations make both the corporate body and the person who signs the entry form potentially liable, dismissed challenges to the lawfulness and reasonableness of HMRC’s review decision, and upheld the assessment. The appeal was dismissed.

Toolbox.net Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 363 (TC) 19 May 2011 This appeal challenged two penalties for late filing the Appellant's P35 for 2009/10, with the Appellant asserting it had submitted the return online and had a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that HMRC received no P35 by the statutory deadline, no confirmation was sent, and the Appellant did not establish a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty determination confirmed.

Trustees of the D R Shanks Discretionary Trust v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 332 (TC) 19 May 2011 This appeal challenged a 5% surcharge for late payment of a trust's 2008–09 tax liability, the trustees having filed the return but not paid the balance due by 31 January 2010. The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse for non-payment from 31 January to on or after 20 April 2010, rejecting reliance on professional advisers, non-receipt of an HMRC payslip, and the new trustee's unfamiliarity, and dismissed the appeal.

(1)Arthur Frederick Golding (2)Julia Anne Middleton (executors of the will of Dennis Golding deceased) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 351 (TC) 18 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether Blue Gates Farm (16.29 acres, agricultural buildings and a 3‑bed farmhouse) was "agricultural property" under s.115(2) IHTA 1984 at the date of Dennis Golding's death. The Tribunal found on the facts that the farmhouse was "of a character appropriate" to the agricultural land and a working farm notwithstanding limited profitability and modest fittings, allowed the executors' appeal and dismissed HMRC's determination. The Tribunal refused an adjournment, disallowed reliance on an unreported case, and made no costs award.

Active Infotech Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 328 (TC) 18 May 2011 This appeal concerned Active Infotech's claim for repayment of VAT of £6,033,565.13 which HMRC refused as connected to MTIC fraud. The Tribunal found most transactions (including two disputed contra‑trades) were linked to fraudulent VAT loss and that Infotech, through its director Mr Singh, knew or ought to have known the only reasonable explanation was connection to fraud. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC was authorised to seek costs for the hearing.

Macwaste Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 331 (TC) 18 May 2011 Macwaste appealed HMRC's decision to restore a seized Mercedes HGV only on payment of an £840 restoration fee after a fuel sample tested positive for Euromarker. The appellant said the vehicle had been used off-road and transported to Heysham by low-loader, later producing invoices and a test certificate. The Tribunal found the review officer gave insufficient weight to that explanation, accepted the later documentary evidence as credible, allowed the appeal and quashed the restoration decision subject to the fee.

McMullen Holdings Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 327 (TC) 18 May 2011 McMullen Group Holdings Ltd appealed an HMRC civil penalty for late VAT registration, claiming its agents filed a VAT1 on 8 April 2008. The tribunal found the agents had filed the VAT1 timeously and that the Wolverhampton registration unit had contemporaneous operational failings and misfiling. Relying on that evidence, the tribunal allowed the appeal and overturned the penalty.

Mr Jack Harouni v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 361 (TC) 18 May 2011 Mr Harouni sought permission to bring a late appeal against an HMRC closure notice assessing a 2003/04 capital gain on "The Paddocks". The Tribunal found he had actual knowledge of the notice, engaged accountants who reviewed it, entered an instalment arrangement and delayed beyond the statutory deadline without an adequate reasonable excuse. The Tribunal refused permission to extend time to appeal, concluding the appellant's conduct and the public interest in finality weighed against granting late permission.

Value Catering Ltd Craven Gilpin & Sons(1982) Ltd Craven Gilpen & Sons Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 329 (TC) 18 May 2011 This case concerned whether various supplies of cold food by the Appellant were "in the course of catering" for VAT purposes and therefore excluded from zero-rating. The Tribunal held, after applying a non‑exhaustive list of factual factors, that each disputed supply (stand delivery including Farnborough, general food delivery, and pre‑ordered Harrogate picnic platters) was a supply of food in the course of catering and thus not zero‑rated. The appeal on the preliminary legal classification was dismissed; issues of quantum, time limits and enrichment were reserved.

W J Black & Co v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 330 (TC) 18 May 2011 This appeal concerned an HMRC assessment of £31,603 for alleged excess duty on fuel in a Volvo lorry after a non-standard auxiliary tank was found; HMRC's audit disallowed fuel above the confirmed standard tank capacity and produced a best-judgment assessment. The Tribunal found the additional tank was non-standard and not used as required under the Directive/1995 Order, upheld HMRC's audit methodology and assessment, and dismissed the appeal.

Aspinalls Club Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 325 (TC) 17 May 2011 Aspinalls Club appealed HMRC's refusal to repay alleged overpaid gaming duty, arguing that commissions and rebates under its Premium Player Programmes (PPPs) should reduce "banker's profits" under s.11(10) Finance Act 1997 or count as "prizes provided." The Tribunal held the statutory terms must be given their ordinary/purposive meaning, refused to import PPP terms into the calculation, and found commissions/rebates are not "prizes provided." The appeal was dismissed.

Trans-Int SRL v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 326 (TC) 17 May 2011 This case concerns an application to reinstate an appeal that had been dismissed for failure to serve witness statements in a dispute where Trans-Int SRL was assessed as guarantor for £112,132 excise duty on four duty‑suspended wine movements. The Tribunal reinstated the appeal and stayed it for six months after concluding there was a real prospect of success based on Italian criminal investigation material suggesting the AADs were falsified and that the irregularity may have occurred before arrival in the UK. The Tribunal directed the parties to progress the Italian investigation and for the Appellant to obtain representation.

James Buchan Little v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 324 (TC) 16 May 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments for car fuel benefit for 2005–06 and 2006–07 in respect of a company-owned Porsche used by Mr Little. The Tribunal found the Porsche was a company asset, that fuel provided for a company car gives rise to an automatic fuel benefit charge, and that Mr Little failed to produce contemporaneous records or other evidence to show either that no private fuel was provided or that he personally "made good" any private fuel. The appeal was dismissed and the HMRC assessments upheld.

Kenneth Joseph Carver v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 323 (TC) 16 May 2011 This case concerned an application to admit four late appeals against discovery assessments dated 12 October 2005. The Tribunal found the appellant initially had a reasonable excuse for missing the 30-day appeal period, but that excuse ceased by February 2008 when he was aware of the assessments and the appeal time limit; he then unreasonably delayed over a year in applying for leave, so the Tribunal refused to admit the late appeals. The respondent’s prejudice and public interest in prompt challenges were factors in refusing leave.

Greystone International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 321 (TC) 13 May 2011 This appeal concerned nine CPU purchase transactions in 2006 for which Greystone claimed input VAT; HMRC traced the purchases into chains involving defaulters and alleged MTIC-type fraud. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the purchases were connected to fraudulent VAT losses, that Adam Thompson (who organised the deals) knew of the connection and his knowledge was attributed to the company, and accordingly dismissed the appeal and denied the input tax claims, awarding HMRC costs.

Kulvinder Singh Duhra, Parmjit Kaur Duhra, Kulvinder Singh Duhra and Parmjit Kaur Duhra (as partners) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 322 (TC) 13 May 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments and penalties challenging the Duhras' declared taxi-rental turnover for years 1998/99–2005/06. The Tribunal accepted the Duhras' reconstructed "Blue Book" for 2003/04 (£77,485), adjusted 2002/03 to £61,900, uplifted earlier years by a calculated ratio, and accepted declared figures for 2004/05 and 2005/06; it set the income tax penalty loading for 2003/04 at 20% (applied similarly to other years absent distinguishing evidence). The Tribunal directed parties to use those turnover findings to agree or amend assessments and penalties, with leave to return if they cannot agree.

Mr David Sherratt and Mrs Elizabeth Sherratt v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 320 (TC) 13 May 2011 The Sherratts claimed a £13,082.81 VAT refund under the DIY builders' scheme for a self‑built farmhouse. HMRC denied the refund on the basis that planning conditions prevented separate use or disposal of the farmhouse. The First‑tier Tribunal found the planning restrictions did prevent separate disposal/use and dismissed the appeal, holding the supply was standard‑rated and no VAT repayment was due.

Atlantic Electronics Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 314 (TC) 12 May 2011 This decision concerned case-management rulings in an MTIC appeal seeking input tax of £1,128,137.50, specifically whether ten respondent witness statements (or parts) should be admitted, excluded or redacted. The tribunal applied the Tribunal Rules and the overriding objective to exclude several late, irrelevant, opinionated or prejudicial passages, permitted some statements (subject to deletions), and ordered revised composite statements, indexing and a timetable for remaining evidence. Directions were given for limited re‑service (eg a revised Cummins statement) and for expert reply and other pre‑trial steps.

Irene Jean Middleton t/a Freshfields v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 316 (TC) 12 May 2011 This appeal concerned IJM's challenge to HMRC's refusal to backdate her VAT Effective Date of Registration (EDR) earlier than 1 August 2008. The tribunal found the 1 August 2008 date was deliberately chosen on the VAT1, no "genuine error" or HMRC "departmental error" justified retrospective amendment, and HMRC's refusal was not one a reasonable decision‑maker could not have made. The appeal was dismissed.

Cudworth of Norden v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 312 (TC) 11 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether goods taken by the appellant from the UK and sold on trade stands in Germany were zero-rated exports or constituted a taxable deemed supply in the UK. The First-tier Tribunal held that a deemed supply arose on removal of the goods from the UK and, because the appellant was not VAT-registered in Germany, standard-rate UK VAT was properly payable at that point. HMRC therefore correctly refused the appellant’s voluntary disclosure reclaim. The tribunal did not determine the quantum of any repayment and left evidential and time-limit issues open.

E C R Consulting Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 313 (TC) 11 May 2011 E C R Consulting Ltd (controlled by Miss Richardson) appealed HMRC determinations that IR35 applied to her engagements with Vertex Data Services via agencies. The Tribunal analysed contracts, factual arrangements and decided the hypothetical contract would have been a contract for services because substitution rights were effective and VDS did not exercise sufficient control. The appeal was allowed and the determinations were cancelled.

Alan Jones v Director of Border Revenue [2011] UKFTT 307 (TC) 10 May 2011 This appeal concerned seizure of 4,200 cigarettes and 3.5 kg hand-rolling tobacco from Mr Jones arriving at Luton Airport and the Review Officer's refusal to restore the goods after Magistrates had condemned them. The Tribunal held Mr Jones had forfeited the opportunity to challenge the lawfulness of seizure by failing to contest the condemnation proceedings and therefore could not re-open that issue; it also found the Review Officer's non-restoration decision was reasonable and proportionate. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were ordered against the appellant.

Bradgate Containers Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 308 (TC) 10 May 2011 Bradgate Containers appealed a post-clearance demand for customs duty and VAT arising from late submission of inward processing relief (IPR) re-export documentation. The tribunal found Bradgate had been "obviously negligent" for remission purposes but, on the balance of probabilities, had not authorised the customs entry (the declarant and paying agent was the shipping agent Concordia) and therefore was not the debtor under Article 204(3). The appeal succeeded on that basis and the demand was set aside as against Bradgate.

G V Cox Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 311 (TC) 10 May 2011 GV Cox Ltd appealed a second £200 penalty for late filing of a company tax return, arguing that posting the return on 27 August 2010 created a reasonable expectation it would be received by HMRC by 31 August 2010. The tribunal accepted the director’s evidence that the return was posted but, applying CPR deeming rules and having regard to the 30 August bank holiday, deemed service on 1 September 2010 and rejected the reasonable-expectation argument. The appeal was dismissed and the £200 penalty was confirmed.

MMC Midlands Limited (in liquidation) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 310 (TC) 10 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether quantities of limestone sold by MMC were exempt from the aggregates levy as spoil from extraction of fluorspar by mechanical or chemical separation. The tribunal held that only material actually separated by breaking a mechanical or chemical bond can be exempt and that MMC had not produced credible evidence quantifying any such exempt material. The appeal was dismissed and no adjustment was made to HMRC's assessments.

Mr David Lowrie v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 309 (TC) 10 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether the purchase and sale of 183 Carden Avenue was a taxable trade or, alternatively, whether the property qualified for Principal Private Residence (PPR) relief. The Tribunal found there was no adventure in the nature of trade but held the property was not the Appellant’s only or main residence because his occupation lacked the necessary degree of permanence and continuity after his sister’s illness and death. Consequently PPR relief was denied and HMRC’s amendment increasing the Appellant’s tax stood.

Anthony Yates v Director of Border Revenue [2011] UKFTT 299 (TC) 9 May 2011 This appeal concerned the refusal by the Border Agency to restore a BMW seized after 17 kg of hand-rolling tobacco and alcohol were found, with evidence suggesting the goods were imported for commercial sale and the appellant had misled officers. The Tribunal found the vehicle had been used to facilitate commercial importation and, applying Agency policy and authority, concluded that refusal to restore the vehicle was reasonable and not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed and the vehicle condemnation upheld.

Castledale Building Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 301 (TC) 9 May 2011 This appeal concerned 243 penalties totalling £36,100 imposed on a CIS contractor for 31 late monthly returns between May 2007 and September 2009. The appellant relied on marital breakdown, loss/corruption of records, family illness, personal stress and financial difficulty as reasonable excuses; HMRC relied on publicity and that the appellant continued trading without promptly contacting HMRC. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse and that the penalties were not grossly disproportionate, and dismissed the appeal.

Contour Business Interiors v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 300 (TC) 9 May 2011 This appeal concerned penalties for five late monthly CIS returns (periods ending 5 Feb–5 Jun 2010). The Tribunal found a reasonable excuse only for the February 2010 return, rejected reasonable excuse for the subsequent four returns, accepted HMRC's receipt dates and reduced total penalties from £1,500 to £1,400. The appeal was allowed only in respect of the initial £100 penalty; the other penalties were upheld.

Margaret Williams v Director of Border Revenue [2011] UKFTT 318 (TC) 9 May 2011 This appeal concerned the refusal by the Director of Border Revenue to restore a vehicle seized at Dover containing significant quantities of tobacco and cigarettes. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to re‑decide the personal‑use issue because the legality of the seizure had not been challenged at the Magistrates' Court, and it upheld the Reviewing Officer’s refusal on proportionality grounds as a decision which he could reasonably have reached. The Tribunal found the owner had not exercised reasonable care over use of her vehicle and was aware of and supportive of large‑scale importation by her husband.

Mr Alan Thomas Davies v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 303 (TC) 9 May 2011 This appeal addressed a £100 penalty for a late CIS return said to be received by HMRC on 22 June 2010, while the appellant maintained he posted the return (and a cheque) on 15 June 2010 after weighing and franking at the village post office. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's account, treating post office staff evidence as independent corroboration and finding it inherently improbable he would have posted the cheque but not the return, so a postal delay amounted to a reasonable excuse. The penalty was quashed and the appeal allowed.

Mr Jeremy Riley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 306 (TC) 9 May 2011 Mr Riley appealed HMRC's imposition of a 5% late payment surcharge of £3,919 (and challenged an asserted second 5% surcharge of £195.95) on self-assessed tax due 31 January 2010. The tribunal found that Mr Riley had a reasonable excuse (his father's illness and death) for part of the default period but not throughout the statutory periods required to avoid surcharges. The first surcharge was confirmed and, if the second was issued, it was also properly imposed; the appeals were dismissed (with parties to verify issuance of the second notice).

Robert E Clark v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 302 (TC) 9 May 2011 This case concerns Mr Robert E Clark’s appeal against a P800 Tax Calculation showing an £806.60 underpayment for 2009–10 after HMRC accept errors in PAYE coding and allowances. HMRC applied to strike out the appeal as non-appealable; the Tribunal refused, finding it was not plain and obvious the appeal could not succeed and directed a substantive hearing on jurisdictional and public law questions. The Tribunal held it arguable that the Tax Calculation could amount to an assessment under the TMA and that ESC A19’s exceptional limb might apply on the facts. HMRC’s strike-out application was dismissed and further directions were given for a hearing.

Aidinas Ivanavicius v Director of Border Finance [2011] UKFTT 295 (TC) 6 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether the UKBA's post‑Tribunal review decision refusing restoration of a seized Mercedes Sprinter could reasonably have been reached. The prior Tribunal had made specific findings of fact about Mr Ivanavicius's non‑presence and lack of knowledge and directed a further review; the UKBA reviewer took irrelevant matters into account and failed to take those findings into account. The First‑tier Tribunal allowed the appeal and directed the UKBA to conduct a further review having regard to the Tribunal's specified findings.

Ann Hood v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 294 (TC) 6 May 2011 This appeal concerned an assessment of VAT (£10,865 plus interest) on piano sales which the appellant said she had been advised by HMRC's National Advice Service not to include. The Tribunal found the appellant honest but concluded she had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that she received clear, unambiguous misdirection from HMRC. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

E & P Painting Contractors Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 296 (TC) 6 May 2011 E & P Painting Contractors appealed HMRC surcharges for late VAT returns/payments for 11/09 and 05/10, arguing a misallocated payment and acute cashflow problems (largely from a late-paying major customer and factoring limits) gave a reasonable excuse. The tribunal rejected those arguments, finding no reasonable excuse — notably because of repeated late filings, internal accounting failures, and lack of contact with HMRC (no time-to-pay request) — and dismissed the appeal, upholding the surcharges.

Irene Susan Jennings v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 298 (TC) 6 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether a Leisurewood letter dated 18 July 2005 constituted an "invoice" for a VAT repayment claim of £15,712 under regulation 201. The tribunal found the letter, on company headed paper with VAT number, showing the supply, amounts paid, outstanding balance, VAT shown separately and time for payment, met the ordinary meaning of "invoice" and allowed the appeal. The tribunal also found the supply was materials only, standard rated and that Statement of Practice 01/07 and a later insurance claim were not relevant to the repayment claim.

TPH Developments Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 297 (TC) 6 May 2011 TPH Developments appealed three VAT assessments. The Tribunal exceptionally allowed the late appeal, upheld HMRC's 01/04 assessment (finding the appellant had not shown HMRC's 25% apportionment to be unreasonable), reserved decision on the 04/04 assessment pending consideration of alleged maladministration/legitimate expectation, and adjourned the 10/05 wall zero‑rating issue for further evidence and submissions.

Eastwell Manor Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 293 (TC) 5 May 2011 Eastwell Manor Ltd appealed a 15% VAT default surcharge of £18,453.66 after a BACS payment of £123,024.44 reached HMRC on Monday 8 November 2010 rather than the due Friday 5 November 2010 (the seventh electronic extension day was a Sunday). The Tribunal held the company did not have a reasonable excuse because its cashflow difficulties were not sudden or unforeseeable and it could have obtained funds or sought Time to Pay before the due date. The Tribunal also held the surcharge, while harsh, was not disproportionate and dismissed the appeal.

A & C Akin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 291 (TC) 4 May 2011 The partners of USA Fried Chicken appealed penalties for late filing the 2008/09 partnership return, claiming attempts to file online failed because third‑party software was required and that their agent was responsible. The Tribunal found the paper filing option remained available and that ignorance of the online software requirement and reliance on an agent did not constitute a "reasonable excuse" under the TMA. The appeal was dismissed and the fixed penalties were upheld.

Hellesdon Leather and Cloth Company Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 292 (TC) 4 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether input tax claimed on a Range Rover, entertainment, clothing and meals/trips was recoverable. The tribunal found the Range Rover was a "motor car" acquired for business but, because nothing legally or physically prevented private use by directors, it was treated as having been made available for private use and input tax on it was disallowed; input tax on entertainment was also disallowed. HMRC had accepted that input tax on clothing and meals/trips was creditable, and the tribunal restored those amounts. The appeal was therefore allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Industrial Contracting Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 290 (TC) 4 May 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC's cancellation of the appellant's CIS gross payment registration after a single Class 1A NIC payment of £361.60 was paid 20 days late. The First-tier Tribunal found there was no "reasonable excuse" for the late payment, held HMRC acted within the statutory scheme in cancelling gross status, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also held it had no jurisdiction to apply a proportionality test based on adverse business consequences.

Martin Cleveland t/a Martin Cleveland Photography v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 287 (TC) 4 May 2011 This appeal concerned a £400 penalty imposed on Martin Cleveland for late submission of the 2009/2010 P35 return; HMRC treated the employer’s earlier paperwork as not containing a correct P35 and later online submission was on 24 January 2011. The Tribunal found there was no reasonable excuse that subsisted for the whole default period and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty.

Nicholas Pike v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 289 (TC) 4 May 2011 Mr Pike purchased loan stock for £6m which carried a rolled‑up 7.25% per annum payment payable on redemption after 13 years; he transferred the stock to a family trust and claimed Schedule 13 loss relief treating the stock as a relevant discounted security (RDS). The Tribunal held that the additional rolled‑up sum was "interest" in the ordinary sense — a time‑based return calculable by reference to an underlying debt and accruing day to day even if payable only on redemption — so the loan stock was not an RDS. The appeal was dismissed and the claimed loss relief denied.

Peter Boote Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 288 (TC) 4 May 2011 Peter Boote Ltd appealed a £500 late-filing penalty for failing to submit its 2009/10 P35 by the 19 May 2010 deadline; the return was filed online on 13 October 2010. The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse, rejecting reliance on an agent or a mistaken belief that the return had been filed, and upheld the penalties.

Connect Business Solutions Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 281 (TC) 3 May 2011 Connect Business Solutions failed to file its 2007–08 P35 by the statutory deadline and HMRC imposed two late-filing penalties totalling £1,200. The First-tier Tribunal found the return was not filed on time, rejected Connect's asserted reasonable excuse (including non-receipt of HMRC letters and belief that an online filing had been made) and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalties.

Cotswold Snacks & Drinks Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 285 (TC) 3 May 2011 Cotswold Snacks appealed a £400 penalty for filing its P35 return late (deadline 19 May 2010; filed online 6 October 2010), asserting an earlier online submission on 16 March 2010 for which no confirmation was received. HMRC had no record of a March submission; the Tribunal found the appellant produced no evidence of acceptance or notification and rejected the claim of a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

Grattan Plc (No 2) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 282 (TC) 3 May 2011 The First-tier Tribunal had decided to refer two sets of questions to the CJEU (a pre‑1 January 1978 VAT question and additional compound‑interest jurisdiction questions). HMRC applied for a stay of transmission of the compound‑interest reference pending its application for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal, and the tribunal, in light of the Court of Appeal decision in Wilkins and the interests of justice, granted a limited stay suspending effect of the compound‑interest reference until the Upper Tribunal decides permission to appeal; the pre‑1978 reference will proceed. If permission to appeal is granted, further stay applications may be considered by the Upper Tribunal.

Peter Donaghy v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 283 (TC) 3 May 2011 This appeal challenged a £500 employer penalty for late filing of a P35 for 2009/2010; the return was filed online on 11 October 2010 instead of by 19 May 2010. The appellant relied on cessation of trading, prior payment of PAYE/NIC and issuance of P45s, and asserted no loss to revenue and no benefit obtained. The First-tier Tribunal found no reasonable excuse, held the statutory penalties were lawfully imposed, and dismissed the appeal.

Sally Moher t/a Premier Dental Agency v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 286 (TC) 3 May 2011 This appeal concerned whether a dental staffing business’s supplies were VAT-exempt medical/dental services under Group 7, Schedule 9 VATA (Article 13A Sixth Directive) or were standard-rated supplies of staff to dentists. The Tribunal found the appellant supplied staff to dentists, not medical care to patients, and dismissed the s.80 VATA repayment claim. HMRC was not required to repay the claimed output tax and no unjust enrichment was found.

A J Flack Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 279 (TC) 28 April 2011 A J Flack Ltd appealed HMRC penalties for late CIS monthly returns for four periods in 2010, arguing reasonable excuse, HMRC delay, and that the penalties were disproportionate. The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse—ignorance of the law and failure to seek available HMRC guidance did not suffice—and declined to apply a proportionality (Human Rights) review in the absence of exceptional circumstances. The appeal was dismissed and penalties upheld as mitigated by HMRC (total £800).

Durnbrae Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 280 (TC) 28 April 2011 Durnbrae Ltd appealed a £500 statutory penalty for late online submission of its 2009/2010 P35 return, which was submitted online on 6 October 2010 after a 19 May 2010 deadline. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse for the delay, rejecting the director's account that he had mistakenly not pressed "submit" and relying on available website confirmation and helpline facilities. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties were upheld.

Law Costing Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 278 (TC) 28 April 2011 This appeal challenged a £400 penalty for late filing of a P35, hinging on whether a submission made on 9 April 2010 was a live return or a test. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the 9 April submission was a test (not live) based on HMRC ERSS records and system response codes, and that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for late filing. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

Pytchley Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 277 (TC) 28 April 2011 Pytchley Ltd sought permission to appeal out of time against HMRC assessments after very late filing and subsequent HMRC determinations and jeopardy assessment. The Tribunal found the company dilatory and that the director's distraction and ill‑health did not meet HMRC's statutory "reasonable excuse" test, but nonetheless exercised its wide s.49 TMA discretion to grant permission because prejudice to the appellant from being barred from an arguable appeal outweighed prejudice to HMRC. Permission to appeal out of time was granted.

Mill Lane Engineering (Aldershot) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 275 (TC) 27 April 2011 This appeal concerned a default VAT surcharge for quarter 1 July–30 Sept 2008 after late payment; the appellant argued it had a reasonable excuse (payment delays from finance companies) and that the 5% surcharge was disproportionate. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse and was not persuaded the surcharge was disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed and the reduced surcharge of £5,159.09 was upheld.

MTS Recovery & Repairs Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 274 (TC) 27 April 2011 This appeal challenged a 15% default surcharge (£5,018.23) for late VAT payment for period 11/10; the return was filed on time but electronic payment was received 10–11 days late. The Tribunal found the appellants had no "reasonable excuse" for late payment, holding that insufficiency of funds is excluded by section 71(1)(a) VATA 1994, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the surcharge.

Christopher Reid v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 272 (TC) 26 April 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments and closure notices for Mr Christopher Reid for tax years 1989–90 to 2003–04 and penalties for 1996–97 to 2003–04. The Tribunal allowed appeals and set aside assessments for the early years (1989–96) where Mr Reid adduced credible evidence of different circumstances, but dismissed appeals and confirmed tax, NIC and penalties for 1996–97 to 2003–04 (tax and NIC £21,185.07; penalties £9,533.26). The Tribunal applied segmented treatment of periods where circumstances changed and required the taxpayer to displace HMRC’s reasonable inferences drawn from available information.

Don Scott Commercials v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 270 (TC) 26 April 2011 Don Scott Commercials imported US pickup trucks and paid customs duty after a 2005 Tribunal decision in HMRC's favour; no appeal was pursued. After the ECJ later decided in Van Landeghem that such vehicles attracted a lower rate, the importer sought repayment outside the three‑year limitation in Council Regulation 2913/92. The First‑tier Tribunal rejected the claim for repayment as time‑barred and held that the appellant's deliberate choice not to pursue earlier remedies did not amount to force majeure. The appeal was dismissed.

Estate 4 Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 269 (TC) 26 April 2011 This case concerned whether HMRC had reasonable grounds under paragraph 33 of Schedule 18 Taxes Management Act to continue an enquiry into Estate 4 Limited's 2007 corporation tax return. The Tribunal found HMRC had not demonstrated specific objective reasons to continue the enquiry into Estate 4's own return and directed HMRC to issue a closure notice, while noting HMRC remained free to investigate related persons or entities separately.

Richard Carter v Director of the Border Agency 26 April 2011 This is an appeal by Richard Carter against the Border Agency’s refusal to restore a Volvo and excise goods (tobacco, cigars, spirits) seized at Coquelles on 19 August 2009. The Tribunal found the goods had been deliberately concealed and, on the balance of probabilities, were held for commercial resale rather than personal use. The Tribunal upheld the respondent’s decision to refuse restoration and dismissed the appeal.

Stephen Roberts & Alan Martin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 268 (TC) 26 April 2011 This appeal challenged Personal Liability Notices served on two directors for Innova Business Solutions Ltd's unpaid PAYE/NIC. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the directors persistently refrained from remitting deducted PAYE/NIC, paid themselves and some creditors, made no arrangements with HMRC and thus their conduct amounted to neglect attributable to them. The PLNs were held valid and the appeals dismissed.

(1)Mark Buzzoni(Executor of the estate of Mrs Lia Kamhi, deceased)(2)The Legis Trust Limited(3)Vili Hayin (or Hayati) Kamhi(4)Cefi Kamhi v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 267 (TC) 21 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether a future underlease granted by Mrs Kamhi to a trust in 1997 (to commence in 2007) amounted to a disposition subject to a reservation of benefit under s102 IHTA and so formed part of her estate. The Tribunal held the disposition occurred on the grant date (21 November 1997), and that covenants reserving payment (an amount equal to the headlease service charge) and repair liabilities were reserved benefits to Mrs Kamhi. The appellant's challenge was dismissed and HMRC's determinations were upheld.

3 Net Media Group v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 266 (TC) 20 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether a September 2007 "sale of assets" for £60,000 + £10,500 VAT was a transfer of a going concern (TOGC) or a VATable supply, and whether the purchaser could reclaim the input VAT. The First-tier Tribunal found the agreement and substance showed a TOGC, so no VAT supply arose and the purchaser was not entitled to reclaim the VAT; HMRC's assessment to recoup the repaid input tax was upheld.

Sceptre Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 265 (TC) 20 April 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC’s refusal of VAT input tax repayments claimed by Sceptre for 17 sales in 2006, where HMRC alleged the transactions formed part of MTIC fraud. The First‑tier Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the chains involved tax loss through fraudulent evasion, that the deals were connected to that fraud, and that Sceptre (through its director) either knew or ought to have known the transactions were linked to fraud. Sceptre’s defences, including reliance on prior assurances or having taken reasonable precautions, were rejected and the appeal was dismissed.

Anthony Leachman t/a Whiteley and Leachman v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 261 (TC) 19 April 2011 This appeal challenged a £400 penalty for late filing a P35; the appellant conceded the facts but relied on a "reasonable excuse" of a genuine mistake that he believed his accountant would file the return. The tribunal held that a genuine mistake of fact can amount to a reasonable excuse and, on the evidence, accepted that the appellant genuinely held that mistaken belief. The penalty was therefore disallowed.

Ballysillan Community Forum v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 257 (TC) 19 April 2011 HMRC imposed two penalties on Ballysillan Community Forum for alleged failure to file a P35 by the deadline; the Forum said it had submitted the P35 online on 26 April 2010 and produced witnesses who described on-screen confirmation. The tribunal treated the dispute as a factual question and, applying a higher criminal standard of proof because the penalty was criminal in character for Article 6 purposes, accepted the appellant's credible witnesses and found the P35 had been submitted. HMRC's reliance on an absence of a record in its computer system was held insufficient to displace the witnesses' evidence, and the appeal was allowed in full with penalties overturned.

Dingle Clark v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 256 (TC) 19 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Dingle Clark had a reasonable excuse for late VAT payment where he handed cash and a stamped bank giro credit slip to the Bank of England on 6 October 2009 but HMRC's records showed receipt on 9 October. The First-tier Tribunal found it could not conclude payment was not received by the due date and accepted that Mr Clark reasonably expected the cash handed over on 6 October would result in HMRC receiving the payment by 7 October. The tribunal held that Mr Clark established a reasonable excuse under s.59(7)(a) and allowed the surcharge appeal.

Louise Fernandez v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 259 (TC) 19 April 2011 The appellant appealed two £100 late-filing penalties for her 2009 self-assessment return after filing a paper return on 3 December 2010. The Tribunal accepted that failure of HMRC's online filing facility for the appellant and HMRC's failure to respond to her helpdesk enquiries in a timely way amounted to a "reasonable excuse" for missing the 31 January 2010 deadline, so the first penalty was cancelled. The Tribunal held that the same excuse did not justify the continued six-month delay and dismissed the appeal against the second penalty.

Michael Fallon v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 262 (TC) 19 April 2011 This appeal challenged a 5% surcharge (£84.80) on £1,696 unpaid income tax for 2008–09 after HMRC had erroneously removed a fuel benefit from the appellant's PAYE coding. The tribunal found the appellant had no reasonable excuse for the whole period of default (any reasonable excuse ended on 18 February 2010), accepted HMRC's objective justification for treating returns filed after 30 December differently, and dismissed the appeal. The surcharge was therefore upheld, though HMRC retains discretion to mitigate.

Mr Joseph Okolo v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 258 (TC) 19 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Okolo’s self-assessment returns for years ended 5 April 2003 and 2004 genuinely reflected self‑employment income and expenses. HMRC opened enquiries, amended the returns to substantially increase assessed tax, and the tribunal found the appellant’s late claim that the returns were fabricated not credible. The tribunal upheld the amended assessments and dismissed the appeal.

N A Dudley Electrical Contractors Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 260 (TC) 19 April 2011 This appeal concerned penalties for late filing a P35 for the year ended 5 April 2008. The Tribunal found HMRC had not sent a paper return and had no evidence the company had elected to file online, so the appellant had a "reasonable excuse" for the whole default period. The penalties (two successive penalties of £400 and £300) were disallowed, including because HMRC delayed issuing the first penalty notice. Appeal allowed in full.

Network Euro Limited (in liquidation) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 19 April 2011 This appeal concerns Network Euro Ltd's claim to recover £8,876,709 VAT on 62 UK mobile‑phone transactions (Apr–Jul 2006). The Tribunal found overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the chains were organised MTIC fraud, that the company (through its directors Mr Virdee and Mr G Taggar) knew or had means of knowledge of the fraud, and applied the Kittel line of authority to deny the input VAT. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC awarded costs; unpaid‑invoice claims were also rejected under s.26A VAT Act 1994.

Coolatinney Developments Limited Northam House 1129 Limited Northam House 1130 Limited Northam House 1131 Limited Northam House 1136 Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 252 (TC) 15 April 2011 This case concerned whether HMRC's letters of 18/19 August 2008, which mistakenly referred to enquiries into a "self certificate", nonetheless amounted to valid notices of enquiry under paragraph 12, Schedule 10 Finance Act 2003. The First-tier Tribunal found the "self certificate" phrase was a mistake but, viewing the documents actually sent to each purchaser as a whole, the notices were substantially in conformity with Part 4 and their intended effect was reasonably ascertainable, so the enquiries were valid. The appellants' appeal was dismissed.

Greenoaks Pharmacy Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 254 (TC) 15 April 2011 This case concerned an application for permission to bring a late appeal against HMRC jeopardy amendments and assessments increasing Greenoaks Pharmacy's corporation tax. The Tribunal held that a 21 August 2009 fax from the appellant's representative, conveying an intention to appeal, was sufficient as a notice of appeal under Schedule 18, and that fairness justified allowing a late appeal; jeopardy tax was postponed pending the appeal.

Harrison News Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 251 (TC) 15 April 2011 Harrison News Ltd appealed HMRC Regulation 80 income tax determinations of £59,288.95 and Section 8 NIC decisions of £43,428.54 arising from unpaid PAYE/NIC and unreported employee benefits. The Tribunal found HMRC's determinations were reasonably made on the material before them and that the appellant, despite ample opportunity, failed to produce evidence to rebut HMRC's computations. The appeal was dismissed and the determinations and decisions were confirmed.

Mr James Yarlett t/a "Beanies-by-Night" and t/a "J Y Electricals" v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 253 (TC) 15 April 2011 The appellant, Mr Yarlett, operated J Y Electricals and from late 2005 a reduced-scale restaurant trading as Beanies-by-Night; HMRC aggregated turnover and issued a VAT assessment and a 15% fixed penalty for late registration. The Tribunal found the restaurant was not carried on in partnership with Mrs Wagstaff and that both businesses were sole trader activity, dismissed the appeal against the VAT assessment and upheld the 15% penalty. The Tribunal noted sympathy for the appellant’s financial position and urged HMRC to consider discretionary collection measures.

Chris Crooks v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 246 (TC) 14 April 2011 Mr Crooks appealed 15 penalties totalling £1,500 for late CIS monthly returns for periods ended 5 Aug–5 Dec 2009. The tribunal found he was honest but had no reasonable excuse: ignorance of the CIS filing requirements and reliance on helpline advice did not causally explain the late filings. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties upheld.

David Lierens t/a MBX Game Exchange v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 247 (TC) 14 April 2011 This appeal concerned a £303.33 penalty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2007 for operating as a trust/company service provider without registration. The Tribunal found the appellant’s small game-exchange/mailbox business was within the MLR and that registration was required, but concluded the imposed penalty was disproportionate given the appellant’s lack of sophistication and prompt steps to regularise, and reduced the penalty to £50.

Deandrake Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 250 (TC) 14 April 2011 Deandrake Ltd claimed £181,125.88 input VAT on four mobile‑phone transactions; HMRC refused repayment on the basis the transactions were connected to a VAT loss involving a defaulting trader. The Tribunal found the transactions were so connected and, although the company did not actually know the only reasonable explanation was fraud, it ought to have known and so was not entitled to the input tax. The appeal was dismissed and the input tax claim denied.

Digitop Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 249 (TC) 14 April 2011 Digitop Limited appealed a 15% default surcharge (£1,365.91) for a one-day late VAT payment. The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse, concluded the company had mismanaged its accounting responsibilities, and held the surcharge was not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

ESA Films Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 248 (TC) 14 April 2011 This appeal concerned a £1,100.23 penalty for ESA Films Ltd's 241-day late filing of its 2004 corporation tax return after earlier name changes from Internet Experts Ltd to ESA Recruitment Ltd and then ESA Films Ltd. The Tribunal found the company is the same legal entity notwithstanding the name changes, that no reasonable excuse was shown for late filing, and that payment of the tax and the passage of time did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the paragraph 18 penalty confirmed.

Philip E Edgar v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 245 (TC) 13 April 2011 Mr Edgar appealed HMRC's disallowance of pre-employment costs incurred to convert a South African commercial pilot licence to a UK/JAA standard and related travel before starting UK employment. The Tribunal held that most disputed items were training, personal or pre-employment travel costs and did not qualify as deductible "professional fees" under s343 ITEPA 2003, and that expenses incurred before commencing employment are not deductible under s336 or s337; the appeal was refused. HMRC's allowed flat-rate and headset concessions were upheld.

Mr Colin Swingler v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 242 (TC) 12 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Swingler's employment "terminated" before 6 April 1998 for the purposes of paragraph 11(b) of the Schedule to the Regulations, affecting repayment of tax on pension medical benefits. The Tribunal held "termination" refers to the date employment actually ceased, not the date of an irrevocable agreement to retire, and found Mr Swingler's employment terminated on 7 January 2000. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's refusal to repay was upheld.

Somercombe OTS No 39 Limited (in liquidation) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 244 (TC) 12 April 2011 This appeal concerned a £100 fixed penalty for a corporation tax return filed 37 days late; the liquidator explained delay by accountants' failure, lack of information, and inability to file online. The tribunal accepted the company had no taxable income but held those reasons did not constitute a reasonable excuse and that the statutory flat penalty was not excessive. The appeal was dismissed.

Digital Solutions Technology Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 238 (TC) 11 April 2011 This appeal challenged a 15% VAT default surcharge of £1,519.80 for the period 07/10 for late submission and late payment. The taxpayer relied on a planned IT upgrade and absence of an administrator as reasons for the default. The First-tier Tribunal found no reasonable excuse (planned/foreseeable events and reliance on another person without contingencies did not suffice) and dismissed the appeal, upholding the surcharge.

Ian James Cubberley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 239 (TC) 11 April 2011 Mr Cubberley appealed a 5% HMRC surcharge for late payment of 2008/09 income tax, arguing he had a reasonable excuse because of insufficiency of funds and reliance on two telephone contacts with HMRC. The Tribunal found his prior high income and discretionary spending (including a loft conversion) meant insufficiency of funds was not a reasonable excuse, that HMRC's failure to call back in January did not excuse him from securing a Time To Pay arrangement, and that a March 11 telephone assurance came after the surcharge trigger date (28 February) and could not negate the surcharge. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge confirmed.

Leonards Solicitors Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 240 (TC) 11 April 2011 This appeal challenged a 15% VAT default surcharge of £2,178.09 for the period to 30 September 2010 where the return was filed on time but payment arrived late. The appellants relied on a long‑standing cashier's genuine mistake and difficult trading conditions; the tribunal rejected those as "reasonable excuses" under the statutory scheme. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge remained payable.

Manor House Surgery (Glossop and Hadfield) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 236 (TC) 11 April 2011 This appeal concerned two £100 flat-rate penalties for filing SDLT1 returns 20 days late after an agent's computer/system error prevented online submission. The First-tier Tribunal found there was no reasonable excuse—no exceptional event had prevented filing by the deadline—and upheld both penalties, noting the absence of tax liability did not affect liability for the flat-rate penalties.

Mr T J Fisher (T/a The Crispin) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 235 (TC) 11 April 2011 Mr Fisher ceased trading and did not file an employer's annual return by the due date; HMRC imposed an £800 fixed penalty. The tribunal found HMRC had given misleading or incomplete advice by omission which led Mr Fisher reasonably to believe no further filing was required, and that this constituted a "reasonable excuse" persisting through the default period. The appeal was allowed and the penalty set aside.

Norman Bruce t/a Norrie Bruce Plant Hire v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 241 (TC) 11 April 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC's cancellation of Norman Bruce's gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme after a scheduled review found a late self‑assessment balancing payment. The Tribunal found the compliance test was not met and that Mr Bruce had no reasonable excuse for the late payment (bank records showed funds and reliance on an accountant was not a sufficient excuse). The appeal was dismissed and the cancellation upheld.

Qureshi School of Motoring v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 234 (TC) 11 April 2011 This appeal concerned late filing penalties for a partnership tax return received by HMRC on 1 December 2009 after the paper deadline of 31 October 2009. The appellants argued they could not file online because HMRC’s service required third‑party software; the Tribunal found no reasonable excuse and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also rejected that any effective attempt to file electronically had been made and noted the return itself warned of the software requirement.

Michael Golding v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 232 (TC) 8 April 2011 This case concerned whether a Ferrari owned by Huntington Antiques Ltd was "made available" to its director/employee Michael Golding for benefit‑in‑kind tax purposes. The Tribunal accepted Mr Golding's unchallenged evidence that he made no personal use of the car, which had been acquired as a track/marketing vehicle and held for sale, and concluded it was not made available to him in his employment. The assessment so far as it related to the Ferrari was discharged and the appeal allowed.

Mr M Riaz v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 231 (TC) 8 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether a partnership tax return for year to 5 April 2009 was filed on or before the 21 April 2010 filing date. HMRC said an incomplete return arrived 14 June 2010 and a valid return on 7 September 2010; penalties were imposed. The tribunal found the agent's 29 July 2010 letter to be unclear, internally inconsistent and lacking probative evidence (such as proof of posting), and concluded no return was submitted on or before the filing date, dismissing the appeal.

Yusuf Budiadi v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 233 (TC) 8 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Budiadi had a "reasonable excuse" for failing to pay income tax due by 31 January 2009 on a post-employment payment that had been taxed at basic rate only. The First-tier Tribunal found that his genuine belief that PAYE had discharged the tax liability amounted to a reasonable excuse for the period before HMRC notified him, and discharged the £210.44 surcharge; he remained liable for the outstanding tax once notified.

Mrs Lorraine Smith v Director of Border Revenue 7 April 2011 Mrs Lorraine Smith appealed the refusal by a reviewing officer to restore her Vauxhall Zafira, seized after tobacco and cigarettes were found in the vehicle following travel to Belgium on 3 September 2009. The Tribunal found Mrs Smith truthful, innocent and blameless, accepted she took reasonable steps to prevent misuse of the car, and held the reviewing officer’s refusal to restore was unreasonable and could not have been reasonably arrived at. The Tribunal directed the reviewing officer’s decision to cease to have effect and allowed the appeal.

Queen Mary University of London v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 229 (TC) 7 April 2011 This case concerned linked agreements under which LPIC took title to and provided permanently installed specialist plant and machinery for the Blizard Building and charged QMC periodic rent. The tribunal held the linked transactions formed a single indivisible economic supply of the use of permanently installed plant and machinery rather than separable supplies of land and items of plant. The single supply was not zero-rated under Schedule 8 and was standard-rated for VAT. The appeal was dismissed.

Singh and Singh Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 230 (TC) 7 April 2011 This appeal challenged HMRC's Notice requiring Singh and Singh Limited to give security under Schedule 11, para 4(2)(a) VATA 1994. The tribunal found the requirement and the quantum (£46,000 after reconsideration) reasonable given persistently late VAT returns, irregular payments, and an increasing VAT debt; a small calculation error and a late £500 payment did not make the requirement unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed.

Mr Alan Kincaid t/a A K Construction v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 225 (TC) 6 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Kincaid had a reasonable excuse under Schedule 11, paragraph 4(4) Finance Act 2004 for failing the paragraph 4(1) compliance test as at 19 March 2010 and whether paragraph 4(7) permitted finding of non-compliance by reason of expected post-qualifying period misconduct. The Tribunal found he did have a reasonable excuse as at 19 March 2010 and there was no basis to expect post-qualifying period non-compliance, and accordingly allowed the appeal and set aside the gross payment registration determination of 19 March 2010.

Time Together v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 226 (TC) 6 April 2011 Time Together appealed a £400 penalty for late filing its 2009/10 P35, after its agent AGL attempted online submission but entered the wrong tax year and received fail messages. The Tribunal found the P35 was not filed, AGL's error and failure to check with HMRC did not amount to a reasonable excuse, and confirmed the statutory penalty of £400, dismissing the appeal.

Cabling Utilities Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 224 (TC) 5 April 2011 This appeal concerned penalties for using rebated (red) diesel in a Pole Erection Unit which was stopped while carrying telegraph poles. The Tribunal had to decide whether carrying poles removed the vehicle's excepted status and whether the company's reliance on prior written advice from HMRC could amount to a reasonable excuse. Having found the taxpayers were aware of basic law but had relied on HMRC's specific reply after seeing photographs, the Tribunal held there was a reasonable excuse and allowed the appeal. Penalties were not upheld.

Wai Ho Takeaway (partners An Chen and Lin Chen) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 222 (TC) 4 April 2011 This appeal concerned a £207 HMRC penalty for late VAT registration after the Wai Ho Takeaway partners claimed they had licensed their business to Best Catering (10) Ltd from 22 November 2009. The Tribunal, on documentary evidence, found the licence agreement was not a genuine contemporaneous arrangement and that the partners had taken over and carried on the business from that date. The late-notification penalty was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Commissioners For Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs v Panos Parissis and Adrian Towland and Ian Harrison [2011] UKFTT 218 (TC) 1 April 2011 HMRC served s20(1) information notices on three respondents seeking trust and company documents; some material was supplied but seven classes of documents remained missing. The Tribunal held HMRC must first establish a prima facie case that documents exist and are within the recipient's "possession or power", and that "power" can include a practical/de facto ability to obtain documents (not only a presently enforceable legal right). The respondents failed to show lack of possession or power and were liable to penalties (Parissis £200; Towland £200; Harrison £250).

Mr Balvinder Malhi Mrs Jaswinder Kaur v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 220 (TC) 1 April 2011 This appeal concerned a 50% penalty imposed after an extended HMRC enquiry into a partnership's understated profits, with agreed additional tax for partners for 2003/04–2005/06. The tribunal found only a nominal 5% disclosure abatement (no early full disclosure), increased co-operation abatement to 30% (agent contact, appellant illness and some HMRC delay), reduced size/gravity abatement to 15% (large adjustments) and thus upheld an overall 50% penalty. Parties may apply for permission to appeal within 56 days.

Mr Robert Audley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 219 (TC) 1 April 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Audley could claim an income tax loss under Schedule 13 for a loan note described as issued at £2,050,000 but valued actuarially at about £35,700, where the wider scheme transferred a house and cash into trusts. The Tribunal held the scheme was a pre‑arranged commercial unity, the stated issue price lacked commercial reality, the true amount paid for the security was its market/actuarial value (~£35,700) and the excess was a gift into the settlement, so no allowable loss arose. The appeal was dismissed.

Stephen Anthony Solomon Marks v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 221 (TC) 1 April 2011 This appeal concerned the 31 March 1982 re‑basing valuations of Mr Marks's shares in Stephen Marks Holdings Ltd (SMHL) and French Connection Overseas Ltd (FCO). The Tribunal held the two shareholdings were separate assets on that date and should be valued separately, applied a valuation hypothesis limiting available information to what a prudent purchaser could reasonably require and the vendor could supply, and reached values of SMHL £3,709,000 and FCO £443,000. The appeal was allowed to the extent those values increased HMRC's closure‑notice figures, with tax computation left to the parties or further determination.

Totel Distribution Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 217 (TC) 31 March 2011 Totel claimed input tax repayments of £2,871,661.14 for April–June 2006 which HMRC refused on the basis the purchases and sales were connected with MTIC/contra-trading fraud. The Tribunal found objective indicia of contrivance in the transactions and concluded that Totel’s director, Mr Rowbotham, subjectively knew the transactions were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC was entitled to refuse the input tax credit.

David Dennis v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 215 (TC) 29 March 2011 Mr Dennis appealed late-payment surcharges for tax years 2005/06, 2006/07 and 2007/08, conceding the tax was unpaid but arguing HMRC errors, misallocations and prior disputes justified withholding payment. The First-tier Tribunal rejected that as a "reasonable excuse", found the initial and further 5% surcharges properly imposed, and dismissed the appeal.

David Finnamore t/a Hanbridge Storage Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 216 (TC) 29 March 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Finnamore’s provision of numbered metal storage containers on his fenced site was a VAT-exempt licence to occupy land or a taxable supply of storage services. The Tribunal found the contract gave customers exclusive use of defined parcels of land and that occupation was the predominant element of the single supply. Consequently the supplies were VAT-exempt under Item 1, Group 1, Schedule 9 VATA. The appeal was allowed.

Annette Noden and Peter Noden v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 214 (TC) 28 March 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of the Nodens' CIS gross payment status on the basis of alleged compliance failures in the 12‑month qualifying period. The First-tier Tribunal found the late PAYE/CIS payments were within the Regulation 32 tolerances and that a subsequent successful loss‑relief claim extinguished the disputed tax liabilities, so the Nodens did not fail the Schedule 11 compliance test and there was no reason to expect future non‑compliance; the appeal was allowed.

Nicholas Ogden v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 212 (TC) 28 March 2011 The appellant, a Jersey resident, spent over 183 days in the UK in 2002–03 caring for an ill son; HMRC amended his self-assessment to include his salary and a termination payment, increasing his tax liability. The First-tier Tribunal found he was resident and ordinarily resident in the UK for that tax year, rejected arguments that compassionate or exceptional reasons excluded days from the 183-day test, and held the foreign service exception did not apply to the termination payment. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s amendment upheld.

SDM European Transport Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 211 (TC) 28 March 2011 SDM appealed a UK excise duty assessment as guarantor for 65 duty‑suspended movements of spirits in 2006, principally disputing whether consignments (notably to Aldi Vaux‑sur‑Sûre) were delivered or diverted and where any irregularity was detected. The Tribunal heard extensive oral and documentary evidence, found most drivers credible, concluded the Aldi consignments arrived and that forgeries/irregularities occurred after arrival in Belgium, and allowed SDM’s appeal except for Movement 65 to Germany.

Timothy David Hanlin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 213 (TC) 28 March 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC adjustments disallowing the appellant's claimed travel, overnight accommodation and meal expenses for 2006–07 and 2007–08, and related turnover/CIS adjustments. The First-tier Tribunal found the expenses were not incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the trade because the taxpayer's base of operations was the Dungeness site, not his home, and no identifiable deductible proportion or supporting evidence was shown. The Tribunal upheld HMRC's amendments and dismissed the appeal.

Anthony Fane v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 210 (TC) 25 March 2011 This appeal concerned a 15% penalty imposed by HMRC for a careless inaccuracy in Mr Fane's 2008–09 tax return arising from his misreading of a payslip/advance on stock resulting in an overstated PAYE credit. The Tribunal held that, although the mistake was innocent in motive, it nonetheless amounted to a failure to take reasonable care (careless), so the prompted-careless penalty was properly imposed. The Tribunal also held HMRC was not wrong to refuse to suspend the penalty under paragraph 14 Schedule 24 because suitable, practical conditions could not be framed for this one‑off transaction. The appeal was dismissed.

David Taylor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 209 (TC) 25 March 2011 This appeal concerned whether an £11,953.85 ex gratia payment made to Mr Taylor in lieu of missed employer pension contributions was taxable (and subject to National Insurance) when paid to him rather than to a pension scheme, and whether he was negligent in declaring it as exempt on his return. The Tribunal held the payment was chargeable to income tax and National Insurance when paid to the employee, but found Mr Taylor was not negligent in preparing his return and set aside the penalty. The balance of tax owing in respect of the lump sum was confirmed at £4,781.60.

Alan Rue (formerly trading as "Hermitage Clean Care") v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 205 (TC) 24 March 2011 The appellant, Alan Rue, sought to challenge historical VAT assessments and related bankruptcy consequences by a notice of appeal dated 30 June 2010. The First-tier Tribunal concluded it had jurisdiction only if HMRC's 17 June 2010 letter disclosed an appealable decision, but HMRC subsequently confirmed the appellant had no outstanding VAT liability, so there was no appealable decision and the appeal was struck out. Historical complaints from c.1995–2001 were not shown to be appeals against identifiable decisions and, even if they were, permission to admit them out of time would have been refused because of the long delay and evidential difficulties.

Edward Brindley Pitt v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 208 (TC) 24 March 2011 This appeal concerned a 5% late payment surcharge of £1,197.93 imposed after Mr Pitt filed his 2008–09 return online and paid the outstanding tax late following loss of a high‑paying job. The tribunal held that Mr Pitt did not have a "reasonable excuse" for late payment and dismissed the appeal, confirming the surcharge. The tribunal noted that inability to pay, even if caused by loss of income, is excluded by the statute and that an experienced taxpayer should have contacted HMRC to seek a time to pay arrangement.

John Scofield v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 199 (TC) 24 March 2011 This case concerned whether s.66(1) Finance Act 2004, which states that "The Board may at any time make a determination cancelling a person's registration for gross payment", confers a discretion on HMRC and whether HMRC exercised any discretion when cancelling Mr Scofield's CIS gross payment registration. The Tribunal held that "may" is permissive and, in context, does confer a discretion, and that HMRC failed to exercise that discretion in Mr Scofield's case, rendering the determination of 29 January 2010 invalid. The appeal was allowed and the determination quashed.

Jones Brothers Ruthin (Civil Engineering) Co. Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 206 (TC) 24 March 2011 This appeal concerned whether large granite blocks from a St Malo quarry were subject to the aggregates levy or fell within the s.18(2)(a) exemption for stone produced by a process producing one or more flat surfaces. The Tribunal found two distinct operations: severance from the rock face and a deliberate post-severance cutting/resizing process (sawing, drilling and plug-and-feather splitting) producing regular flat-faced blocks. Because the flat faces were produced intentionally by that further process, the blocks fell within the exempt process and the appeal was allowed.

Reed Employment Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 200 (TC) 24 March 2011 This case concerns Reed Employment Ltd's appeals against HMRC refusals of VAT repayment claims for supply of temporary workers. The tribunal held that Reed's supplies were limited to introductions and ancillary services so VAT was only due on Reed's commission, that a 2009 Demand was a separate claim (not an amendment of the 2003 Claim), and that HMRC may rely on the unjust enrichment defence in relation to the 2009 claims. The decision on whether repayment would unjustly enrich Reed on the facts was left for later.

Robert Ward t/a WPS Electrics v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 207 (TC) 24 March 2011 This appeal concerned a 15% default surcharge of £916.35 imposed for late VAT payment for the period 01/05/10–31/07/10; the Appellant paid late and appealed out of time but was granted permission to be heard. The Tribunal rejected the Appellant’s grounds of lack of knowledge of the surcharge regime, non‑receipt of HMRC notices, and cash‑flow problems, finding on the balance of probabilities that notices were sent and received, that available funds could have been reallocated or supplemented, and that the surcharge was not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge upheld.

Fresh Sandwich Bar v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 198 (TC) 23 March 2011 Fresh Sandwich Bar appealed four Regulation 80 PAYE determinations for 2002/03–2005/06 made by HMRC after inadequate or inconsistent P46/PAYE records. The Tribunal held the officer had acted reasonably in making best-judgment determinations, refused the appeal generally, but allowed limited reductions where specific employees (Linda Rice from 24.06.02, Lynda Cordiner, Nicola Barclay and four Saturday-only workers) were positively identified and substantiated; the case was adjourned to quantify sums with RPI adjustments.

Janet Esther Herron v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 197 (TC) 22 March 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments for unpaid hydrocarbon oil duty after a fuel "pod" was found in a van; the appellants failed to provide full vehicle and fuel records requested in a Notice of Seizure. The Tribunal upheld a smaller best‑judgment assessment of £1,823, and reduced a larger £13,024 assessment by 25% (to £9,768) to allow limited credit for occasions where multiple vehicles may have refuelled together, dismissing the appeal otherwise.

Expo Decor Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 195 (TC) 21 March 2011 Expo Decor Ltd appealed a £100 late-filing penalty for a CIS return due 19 June 2010. HMRC's contemporaneous records showed the return was received on 22 June 2010; the Tribunal found that the appellant did not prove posting or a postal delay amounting to a reasonable excuse and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty.

Mr Shamim Ahmed v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 196 (TC) 21 March 2011 This appeal concerned two default surcharge assessments imposed after Mr Ahmed failed to pay tax for 2004/05 and 2005/06 by the due date following assessments issued 30 November 2009. The appellant argued the assessments were invalid because HMRC had not provided background calculations and that his lack of understanding was a reasonable excuse for non-payment. The Tribunal rejected those arguments, finding the absence of calculation detail did not render the assessments invalid and that dissatisfaction or lack of understanding did not amount to a reasonable excuse, and it dismissed the appeal and confirmed the two 5% surcharges.

Mr Stuart William Broughall v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 193 (TC) 21 March 2011 This appeal concerned a £100 penalty for alleged late delivery of a land transaction return (SDLT1) for a freehold title. The Appellant had submitted a return before the filing date listing both freehold and leasehold titles and a single vendor; HMRC later required a separate return naming a different vendor and issued a penalty. The Tribunal found HMRC had not proven the Appellant failed to deliver the required return by the filing date and allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty.

Ms Laoise Davidson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 194 (TC) 21 March 2011 This appeal challenged a 5% default surcharge under s.59 TMA for late payment of 2008/09 tax. The tribunal accepted the appellant had genuine financial difficulties and made some payments and attempts to agree instalments, but found she did not have a "reasonable excuse" for the whole period of default. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge was confirmed.

Rosanna Jayne Gordon v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 191 (TC) 18 March 2011 Mrs Gordon appealed a VAT assessment of £28,652 relating to a repayment return for period 02/99 which had been paid. The tribunal found the repayment had been made without enquiry into supporting invoices, that an assessment was raised and notified in November 2000, and that the assessing officer was entitled to raise a best-judgment assessment on the material available. The appeal was dismissed.

Stephen Simmons (t/a SJS Motors) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 192 (TC) 18 March 2011 This appeal concerned a VAT-registration penalty imposed on Mr Simmons after he continued the motor-dealing business as a sole trader following cessation of SJS Motors Ltd and exceeded the registration threshold without registering. The Tribunal found no factual dispute, held that HMRC had no obligation to notify him of the registration requirement after the change in legal proprietor, and dismissed the appeal on liability while noting HMRC conceded a reduced penalty amount (£5,492.00). The appellant’s reliance on his own advisers did not relieve him of responsibility, though his prompt and honest cooperation was reflected in the penalty calculation.

D Midgley & Sons Ltd and Stuart Midgley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 187 (TC) 17 March 2011 This case concerned appeals by D. Midgley & Sons Ltd and Stuart Midgley against revised Schedule 36 information notices issued by HMRC seeking documents and analyses to check tax liabilities for the year to 31 March 2008. The Tribunal rejected arguments under the Data Protection Act 1998 and PACE 1984, held the notices (as revised) sought information reasonably required for checking the tax position, and dismissed the appeal, but said it had no jurisdiction to allow an appeal in respect of documents that are statutory records.

John Edward Davies v Director of Border Revenue [2011] UKFTT 188 (TC) 17 March 2011 This appeal concerns Mr Davies's challenge to a decision to offer restoration of his seized Ford Focus for a £2,250 fee after 12.05kg of hand‑rolling tobacco was found in the vehicle. The First‑tier Tribunal found Mr Davies innocent and blameless, accepting his evidence that he had lent the car to his brother with no knowledge or suspicion of smuggling. The Tribunal held the imposed restoration fee was disproportionate and remitted the matter for further review taking its factual findings into account.

Khan Tandoori 11 & Khan Tandoori (NW) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 189 (TC) 17 March 2011 This appeal challenged HMRC's decisions to compulsorily register Mr Khan (sole trader) from 1 December 2002 and Khan Tandoori (NW) Ltd from 1 December 2005 and to assess VAT in lieu of returns. Central disputes were whether a numbered meal bill book represented one evening's takings and whether HMRC's purchase-based "business economics" estimates and assumptions about wastage/staff consumption were reasonable. The tribunal preferred HMRC's evidence, accepted the meal book and business-economics exercise as a reasonable basis for estimating turnover, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the registration dates and assessments.

Mr David Wald v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 183 (TC) 17 March 2011 This appeal challenged a 10% penalty under s.95(1) TMA for negligently omitting a taxable £6,617 relocation payment from Mr Wald’s 2006/07 tax return, a return prepared by his accountants. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities the omission was negligence for which the taxpayer was responsible, upheld the £264 penalty as within HMRC guidance and dismissed the appeal.

Ronald Farrell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 182 (TC) 17 March 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Farrell was required to include £6,235 of bank/building society interest in his 2007–08 self-assessment and whether treating directors as more likely to receive returns amounted to unlawful discrimination. The Tribunal held that section 7 TMA 1970 imposed a duty to notify chargeability (and thus to complete a return where required), the appellant did not fall within any statutory exemption, and there was no unlawful discrimination; HMRC’s amendment increasing the tax liability was upheld. The appeal was dismissed.

Wheeled Sports 4 Hereford Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 190 (TC) 17 March 2011 This appeal concerned whether a concrete outdoor skate park built by a charity qualified as a “building” for VAT zero‑rating under item 2(a), group 5, schedule 8 VAT Act 1994. The Tribunal accepted the facility was a permanent constructed installation but found it lacked walls, a roof and a sense of enclosure and therefore was not a “building” for the statutory zero‑rating. The appeal was dismissed and the construction was held to be standard‑rated.

William Begbie Junior t/a Ready Steady Labourers v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 184 (TC) 17 March 2011 This appeal concerned the cancellation of Ready Steady Labourers' Gross Construction Industry (CIS) payment status after a scheduled review found missing/late returns for 2007/08 and five monthly CIS returns in 2008. The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse or evidential support for the appellant's claim that returns had gone astray or been confused with another trader, proceeded in the appellant's absence after prior directions, and dismissed the appeal, upholding cancellation of gross status.

A1 Construction (Derby) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 178 (TC) 16 March 2011 A1 Construction claimed input VAT for payments to VCL but HMRC assessed and disallowed about £12,425, alleging the Appellant did not hold valid VAT invoices meeting Regulation 14 when the claims were made. The Tribunal preferred HMRC’s officer, found the Appellant’s evidence (including accounts of a fire and a false crime number) inconsistent and not credible, concluded the supplied documents did not comply with the invoicing requirements and were not held at the relevant time, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessments with interest.

Arshad Ali v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 180 (TC) 16 March 2011 This appeal concerned income tax assessments and penalties raised against Mr Arshad Ali following Revenue enquiries into his personal‑injury related businesses and a car‑hire partnership, where he failed to provide documentary disclosure and delayed engaging with enquiries. The tribunal refused permission for out‑of‑time appeals for four tax years and summarily dismissed substantive appeals for four other years, finding the Revenue's assessments—based on third‑party information and best‑judgment estimates—were not displaced by Mr Ali's lack of evidence.

David George Ellis t/a D E International Transport v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 181 (TC) 16 March 2011 This case concerns an HMRC excise assessment of £462,319 against Mr David George Ellis as the guarantor shown on 21 AADs for duty‑suspended wine movements to France. The Tribunal found the AAD stamps were forged, the goods did not arrive, and that Mr Ellis’s conduct (issuing invoices and failing to investigate or prevent misuse) amounted to implied authorisation of the guarantees; the assessment was upheld except in relation to seven movements for which no authorisation was found. The appeal was dismissed save for removal of those seven transactions; no costs were awarded.

David Howell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 179 (TC) 16 March 2011 This appeal concerned whether HMRC validly raised discovery assessments under s.29 TMA 1970 after a Tomlin settlement paid the appellant £55,000 on his exit from a partnership. The First-tier Tribunal held there was no "discovery" for the years 1996/97–2003/04 because the partnership and self-assessment returns had been complete and accurate, and the s.29(4)/(5) conditions were not met. Alternatively, the tribunal found the £55,000 was a capital sum payable in 2006/07 for transfer of the partner's share. The discovery assessments for 1996/97–2003/04 were therefore invalid and no further tax was due for 2006/07.

Mr James Williams & Mr Matthew Brown and Mr James Williams, Mr Matthew Brown & Mr Ashley Harvey v UK Border Agency [2011] UKFTT 177 (TC) 16 March 2011 This case concerns appeals against UK Border Agency decisions refusing to restore seized cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco taken from three men in May–June 2009. The Tribunal found the reviewers had properly considered relevant and irrelevant factors, reasonably concluded the goods were for commercial rather than personal use, and rejected claims of exceptional circumstances (e.g. medication, alcohol, stress). The appeals were dismissed and non-restoration decisions upheld.

Auko Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 176 (TC) 15 March 2011 Auko Limited appealed against an £800.27 VAT surcharge for late payment of VAT due 30 September 2009; the VAT was paid in two tranches on 8 and 9 October 2009. The director gave unchallenged evidence that payment was delayed by bank transfer limits and her inability to authorise earlier payment, but the Tribunal held those facts did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal therefore upheld the surcharge and found it not disproportionate.

Codicote Quarry Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 171 (TC) 15 March 2011 This appeal by Codicote Quarry Ltd challenged three VAT surcharge notices for late payment (total £9,816.75). The tribunal found the company had no reasonable excuse for the late payments—cashflow problems and slow-paying customers did not suffice—and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also held the surcharges were not disproportionate given the public interest in VAT collection.

Ian Mitchell FRCS Dr Prabhaker Bhimagunta (3rd Party) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 172 (TC) 15 March 2011 This case concerned whether Dr Prabhaker Bhimagunta was an employee of Mr Ian Mitchell for PAYE/NIC purposes when assisting in private cardiac operations. The Tribunal found the engagements were sporadic, specialist, paid by fixed fee per operation, with minimal supervision and overall coordination by Mr Mitchell, and concluded the relationship was a contract for services. HMRC's determinations that Dr Bhimagunta was an employed earner were overturned and the appeal was allowed.

Troup Curtis & Co Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 170 (TC) 15 March 2011 Troup Curtis & Co Ltd appealed a £100 flat-rate penalty for filing its company tax return 11 days late. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse that persisted throughout the default period and rejected the company's claim of a telephone assurance; it held the Extra Statutory Concession B46 ran only until 7 January 2010 and did not cover the return received on 11 January 2010. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.

Babergh District Council v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 341 (TC) 14 March 2011 This case concerned whether an appeal that was a "current proceeding" (pre‑1 April 2009) could be allocated as a Complex case under the Tribunal's case allocation rules and referred for possible transfer to the Upper Tribunal. The Tribunal held it could direct allocation of a pre‑commencement current proceeding to the Complex category by using the general discretion in paragraph 7(3) of Schedule 3 to the Transfer Order, and on the facts allocated the appeal as Complex and referred it to the President for consideration of transfer.

David Stanley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 169 (TC) 14 March 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments for the years 1990‑91 to 2005‑06 on a self‑employed taxpayer who had never submitted returns. The tribunal held HMRC had "discovered" income for s29 purposes, that the pre‑Finance Act 2008 version of s36 (fraudulent or negligent conduct with the long‑stop) applied by virtue of transitional provisions, and that the taxpayer's failure to notify amounted to negligence so the assessments were lawful; the assessments and HMRC's estimates of profits were confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Kaizen Search Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 168 (TC) 14 March 2011 Kaizen Search Ltd appealed a 10% default surcharge (£6,901.85) for late VAT for the period 06/10 after four defaults. The Tribunal found no "reasonable excuse" for the defaults, concluding the immediate cause was foreseeable cashflow problems arising from agreed extended customer payment terms and other known factors, and held the surcharge was not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

Serpol Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 174 (TC) 14 March 2011 HMRC issued a Decision and Regulation 80 PAYE/NIC determinations treating Serpol's workers supplied to Bedfordshire Police as agency-supplied employed earners; the Tribunal found the Decision procedurally invalid for failing to name persons and state the effective date/period. On the merits the Tribunal held Bedfordshire Police had a contractual right of supervision sufficient to engage the deeming provisions for disclosure officers, indexers, exhibit officers and SOCOs, but allowed Serpol's appeal for project managers, witness-statement takers and those working at home under statutory exclusions.

Kieran Anthony Rogers v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 167 (TC) 11 March 2011 This appeal concerned whether a 9% share transfer to Mr Rogers in June 2001 was taxable as an emolument of his employment and whether PAYE was due. The Tribunal found there was no contractual entitlement and that the transfer was a gratuitous testimonial motivated by gratitude and succession planning, not caused by his employment, so it was not an emolument. Consequently the HMRC assessment was disallowed and PAYE did not arise on that basis.

(1)Chepstow Plant International Limited (2)Edward Hayward v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 166 (TC) 10 March 2011 Chepstow Plant International Ltd owned racehorses that were registered in director Edward Hayward's name; HMRC assessed Hayward for an employment-related benefit and the company for Class 1A NICs for 2003–08. The tribunal preferred Hayward's evidence that he had no personal interest in horses and found the horses were not placed at his disposal, allowing both appeals and quashing the assessments. The tribunal also ordered the company's accountants, Guilfoyle Sage, to pay HMRC wasted costs of £1,327.70 for an avoidable adjournment.

Henryk Janicki v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 165 (TC) 9 March 2011 This appeal concerned Mr Janicki’s claim to Statutory Sick Pay for two periods in 2008 and whether, on the balance of probabilities, he was incapable by reason of disease or disability of doing his contracted work during those periods. The Tribunal accepted HMRC Medical Services’ independent medical reports (an examination in January 2009 and a confirming second opinion) as persuasive evidence that significant disability was unlikely for the claimed periods and found the contemporaneous sick notes inconsistent and of limited weight. The appeal was dismissed and Mr Janicki was not entitled to SSP for the claimed periods.

Thomas James Blanche v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 164 (TC) 8 March 2011 This case concerns whether an employer (Driven) took reasonable care under reg 72 when HMRC coding notices applied in payroll software were later overwritten by a franchisor "master" system, producing under-deduction of PAYE. The First-tier Tribunal found that Driven had acted in good faith and, given the foreseeable interaction between linked systems and contemporaneous evidence that the coding had been applied in payroll software, had taken reasonable care. The tribunal dismissed Mr Blanche's appeal and upheld HMRC's direction relieving Driven and making Mr Blanche liable for the unpaid tax of £2,783.95.

Made to Measure v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 3 March 2011 This appeal concerned whether mattresses and "wave pads" supplied to elderly or infirm customers qualified for zero-rating under Schedule 8 Group 12 VATA as either (a) electrically or mechanically adjustable beds for invalids, or (b) equipment designed solely for use by handicapped persons. The First-tier Tribunal found the products were not adjustable beds nor designed solely for handicapped persons, relied on the absence of definitive manufacturer/designer evidence, and dismissed the appeal as the goods were standard-rated. The decision was released 3 March 2011.

Mr & Mrs Philip and Tracey Ithell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 155 (TC) 3 March 2011 The Ithells appealed HMRC's cancellation of their CIS gross payment status after a series of late tax payments and an unsigned cheque. The Tribunal found HMRC could not prove delivery of the CIS308 cancellation notice and so had not complied with the statutory requirement to give prompt reasons for cancellation; the appeal was allowed and the cancellation set aside. The Tribunal did not decide whether the Ithells had a reasonable excuse or whether future compliance could be expected.

Abbeytrust Homes Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 150 (TC) 2 March 2011 Abbeytrust Homes appealed HMRC’s assessment that VAT of £34,255.32 was payable because building services were standard-rated, not zero-rated. The Tribunal held that payments received before invoicing brought the time of supply forward under s.6(4) VATA, and that at the time of those payments there was no statutory planning consent satisfying Note 2(d) to Group 5 Schedule 8 VATA; retrospective planning permission did not make earlier supplies zero-rated. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s assessment confirmed.

John O'Brien v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 152 (TC) 2 March 2011 This appeal concerned a £100 penalty for a Construction Industry Scheme return received 14 days late. The appellant claimed he posted the return earlier but produced no proof of postage or witness statement; HMRC had previously warned that proof would be required for postal-delay claims. The First-tier Tribunal found no reasonable excuse and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty.

Martin Jones v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 2 March 2011 This appeal concerned whether a £84,000 receipt for sale of partnership interests in 2001/02 was taxable on Mr Jones or on a company (Eve Consultants Ltd) which he said owned the interests. The Tribunal found the written 5 March 2002 sale agreement unambiguous and attributable the gain to Mr Jones, noting no evidential basis for any earlier transfer to the company and confirming a discovery assessment of £30,600. The appeal was dismissed.

Rob Hughes Transport Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 151 (TC) 2 March 2011 This case concerns an application to set aside the First-tier Tribunal's 1 March 2010 decision dismissing Rob Hughes Transport Limited's appeal against HMRC Regulation 80 determinations for tax years 2001/02–2004/05. The appellant failed to provide evidence of jury service or substantive grounds challenging HMRC's computations when requested, and the Tribunal, having verified the computations with HMRC's representative, refused to set aside its decision. The 1 March 2010 dismissal was therefore confirmed, subject to the appellant's continuing right to seek permission to appeal under the relevant rule.

Rocco Mana Ltd t/a Spearmint Rhino Rouge v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 153 (TC) 2 March 2011 Rocco Mana Ltd appealed default VAT surcharge notices for multiple late returns/payments between 09/08 and 03/10. The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse: cashflow insufficiency without a sudden unforeseen event did not excuse early defaults, and later defaults were not excused by non-receipt of paper returns or postal/address problems because the company failed to make adequate arrangements and ought to have known and paid on time. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharges upheld.

Mayfair Executive Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 148 (TC) 1 March 2011 Mayfair Executive claimed input VAT of £1,998,640 from 13 June 2006 trades; the Tribunal found the deals were circular, pre-arranged payment loops traced to fraudulent VAT losses, a fact the appellant had conceded pre-hearing. The sole issue was whether Mayfair knew or ought to have known of the connection to fraud; on the evidence (uniform ~7% profit margin, rapid nine‑party bank payment loops, FCIB records, and unsatisfactory witness credibility) the Tribunal held the Respondents proved knowledge or constructive knowledge and dismissed the appeal. Costs were awarded in principle, with the detailed order reserved.

Codu Computer Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 186 (TC) 28 February 2011 This appeal concerned two £100 penalties for alleged late company tax returns where HMRC had rejected returns before the deadline because accompanying documents were unsigned. The Tribunal found the evidential material thin and HMRC did not produce the notice or other evidence required to establish that unsigned accompanying documents rendered the returns invalid. HMRC therefore failed to prove the returns were late and the penalties were set aside.

Enviroengineering Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 147 (TC) 28 February 2011 Enviroengineering Ltd appealed HMRC's amendments disallowing multiple VAT input tax repayment claims. The Tribunal found Enviroengineering failed to produce documentary proof that consideration (and VAT) had been paid within six months as required by s.26A, and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC's adjustments and earlier Tribunal decisions on some periods as res judicata. The Tribunal accepted HMRC's deductions on certain specified amounts and advised parties of appeal rights.

Lilystone Homes Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 185 (TC) 28 February 2011 This appeal challenged a £100 penalty for an alleged late CIS return for the period ending 5 July 2010; HMRC said they received the return on 23 July 2010, the appellant said he posted it first class on 16 July but had no proof. The Tribunal found HMRC had not produced evidence of the date of receipt and therefore had not discharged the initial burden of proving lateness, allowed the appeal and set aside the penalty. No adjournment was sought to permit HMRC to produce further evidence given the small amount at issue.

Van-Lauren G Welds Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 146 (TC) 28 February 2011 Van-Lauren G Welds Ltd claimed input VAT on a Range Rover purchased for supposed exclusive business use. The Tribunal found that although the company intended business use, it provided the car to its sole director without legal or physical restrictions on private use, so the car was treated as made available for private use and input VAT was disallowed. The appellant’s legitimate-expectation/misdirection complaint against HMRC failed. The appeal was dismissed.

Annette Glen-Jones t/a Sophisticuts v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 141 (TC) 25 February 2011 This appeal concerned whether amounts paid by independent stylists to Mrs Glen-Jones under a National Hairdressers' Federation licence were exempt as letting of immovable property or were taxable supplies of hairdressing facilities/services. The Tribunal found the licence did not grant exclusive possession, Mrs Glen-Jones retained possession and provided equipment and services, and on the facts the arrangement was a package whose essential character was a taxable supply of services rather than an exempt letting. The appeal was dismissed.

Cosmo Leisure Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 143 (TC) 25 February 2011 This appeal concerned whether Cosmo Leisure could deduct admission charges from bingo receipts for bingo duty. The tribunal held that identifiable entrance fees (shown on swipe‑card receipts and understood by members) could be deducted, but unspecified or notional admission amounts embedded in all‑in bingo book/terminal charges could not and are treated as payments for entitlement to participate. The appeal was therefore allowed in part.

Euro Quest Trading Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 145 (TC) 25 February 2011 Euro Quest Trading Ltd (EQT) appealed HMRC’s refusal to allow input VAT and repayment and an assessment, arising from two export sales. The Tribunal found earlier suppliers (GDSM and Sigma) were used in deliberate VAT fraud, that EQT’s purchases were connected to that fraud, and that EQT (through its directors) knew of that connection, so HMRC’s denial of input tax and repayment and the assessment were upheld. Costs were awarded to HMRC.

Gardiners of Denny Yuills of Lanark Facewear, Kirkintolloch v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 142 (TC) 25 February 2011 This appeal concerned whether HMRC lawfully replaced the appellants' 60% exempt / 40% taxable apportionment for sales of spectacles with higher time-based percentages when issuing retrospective s.73 VAT assessments. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellants' full-cost apportionment for June 2009 did not show the returns were incorrect and that HMRC had no rational, explainable basis for the specific percentages it adopted by "best judgement." The HMRC assessments were therefore set aside.

Georgina Sadiq v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 144 (TC) 25 February 2011 This case concerns an out-of-time appeal against HMRC decisions of 18 August 2008 where the appellant sought admission of a late appeal under rule 20 (and extension under rule 5). The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse for the delay, the appellant had not shown a reasonable prospect of success given limited disclosure and non‑cooperation, and refused to extend time. The late appeal was not admitted.

Kingfisher Events Limited (in liquidation) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 140 (TC) 25 February 2011 Kingfisher Events Ltd appealed a VAT assessment (reduced to £28,694.98) and penalty arising from the company claiming full input tax on purchase of the yacht Crackerjack while the yacht was privately used. The FTT found the company had effectively adopted a "deemed supply" (Lennartz) approach, upheld HMRC's assessment except for allowing two days' business use, and applied HMRC's five‑year depreciation basis to value the taxable private use. The deemed supply was treated as a fiscal mechanism and not as an actual supply eligible for place‑of‑supply/zero‑rating.

Mr Martin Sloots v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 139 (TC) 24 February 2011 Mr Sloots appealed a 5% default surcharge under s.59 TMA for late payment of his 2008/09 tax, arguing confusion over online calculations and inadequate HMRC information. The Tribunal found HMRC had made sufficient information available, rejected that the appellant had a reasonable excuse, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the surcharge.

Alan German v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 135 (TC) 23 February 2011 Mr German, an elderly disabled PAYE taxpayer, appealed HMRC’s recovery of a £1,485 underpayment and associated late-filing penalties and surcharges after HMRC coding/posting errors contributed to the underpayment and he filed a self-assessment return late. The Tribunal found the underpayment resulted from HMRC error but held there is no statutory bar preventing recovery from the employee, declined to review HMRC’s wider residual discretion to remit the tax, and upheld the late-filing penalties and surcharges because no continuous reasonable excuse was shown.

Anthony Wood t/a Propave v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 136 (TC) 23 February 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Anthony Wood (t/a Propave) had a "reasonable excuse" for missing a self-assessment payment on account due 31 July 2009, leading HMRC to withdraw his gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme. The First-tier Tribunal accepted his evidence that he genuinely misunderstood public announcements and believed payments could be spread without a formal time-to-pay arrangement, and also took into account that withdrawal would have disproportionate economic consequences. The tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the withdrawal of gross payment status.

Dr John Herbert Smalley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 134 (TC) 23 February 2011 Dr Smalley appealed HMRC's amendment denying a VAT repayment claim of £1,649.04 (after excluding £2.60). The Tribunal found he was not carrying on a business for VAT purposes because the "Sunburst" arrangement did not amount to supplying for consideration or moving towards doing so, and alternatively held there was no real connection between the disputed expenses and any business purpose. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's amendment to nil was upheld.

DV3 RS Limited Partnership v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 138 (TC) 23 February 2011 This case concerned whether s45(3) Finance Act 2003 creates a notional secondary (A–B–C) contract that displaces a simple B–C contract for SDLT where an A→B and B→C sale complete contemporaneously, and whether Schedule 15 para 10 applied to the purchaser CC. The Tribunal held s45(3) does create such a composite secondary contract whose completion is the contemporaneous A→B and B→C actions, and that para 10(2) applied so that CC’s chargeable consideration was nil. The appeal was allowed and no SDLT arose on CC’s acquisition.

J A Draper Joinery v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 137 (TC) 23 February 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC’s amendments to J A Draper Joinery’s 2002/03 and 2004/05 self-assessments disallowing £5,200 recorded as drawings in cost of sales and £24,009 of unsubstantiated employee costs. The Tribunal found the appellant produced no records to show the challenged amounts were allowable wages or valid subcontractor payments and therefore upheld HMRC’s disallowances. The appeal was dismissed and the additional tax/NIC liabilities were confirmed.

Christian Sanders v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 131 (TC) 22 February 2011 Mr Sanders appealed a £3,017.67 surcharge for late payment of 2008/09 tax. He had arranged a 10-month payment plan with HMRC but instalments were not collected because he had not provided bank details; he relied on HMRC's confirmation and was caring for his ill father. The Tribunal found this single inadvertent omission, promptly remedied, together with the exceptional personal circumstances and HMRC's confirmation, amounted to a reasonable excuse and quashed the surcharge.

Michael Davies v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 133 (TC) 22 February 2011 This appeal challenged a 5% surcharge (£6,709.15) for late payment of 2008/09 tax. The Tribunal found Mr Davies knew by mid‑2009 that anticipated US sale proceeds would be delayed, that he left securing alternative funding too late, over‑relied on a financial adviser, and did not notify HMRC when it became clear funds would not be available by the surcharge date. The Tribunal held he had no reasonable excuse and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty.

Mr J H Joy v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 132 (TC) 22 February 2011 This appeal concerned fixed penalties for filing the 2004/05 self-assessment return 233 days late. The Tribunal considered whether the appellant had a "reasonable excuse" for the whole default period, given sabbatical leave, divorce and a mild stroke. The Tribunal found the appellant did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, a reasonable excuse lasting throughout the default period and dismissed the appeal, confirming the £120.47 penalty.

Schola UK Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 130 (TC) 22 February 2011 Schola UK Limited was fined £500 in fixed penalties for filing its 2008/09 employer annual return (P35) 142 days late. The company’s accountants had attempted an electronic submission but later accepted it had failed and an acknowledgement received related to a different client; the Tribunal held this did not amount to a "reasonable excuse." The appeal (admitted out of time with permission) was dismissed and the penalties confirmed.

H C Motors Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 129 (TC) 21 February 2011 H C Motors Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to repay VAT of £7,189.91 for periods 06/05 and 09/05, arguing late filing was excused by business disruption. The First-tier Tribunal held the statutory time limits barred repayment and found no reasonable excuse for the late returns, dismissing the appeal.

Dental IT Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 128 (TC) 18 February 2011 Dental IT Ltd appealed default VAT surcharges imposed for late payments. The Tribunal found that specific, misleading telephone advice given by HMRC staff led the company to believe it had until the 7th to make payment and that this misleading advice constituted a reasonable excuse for the late payments. The appeal was allowed and the surcharges were not payable.

The Amelie Partnership (Mrs Diane Jewiss and Mr Tony Jewiss) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 17 February 2011 This appeal concerned a late self‑assessment tax return where the tribunal found the appellants' accountants did not possess the necessary third‑party software to file online, which caused the late submission. The tribunal held that neither reliance on the accountants nor their lack of software amounted to a reasonable excuse and dismissed the appeal.

Conor Tennyson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 119 (TC) 16 February 2011 This appeal concerned 2006–07 and 2007–08 self‑assessment surcharges and interest imposed on Mr Tennyson for late payment. He argued that large investments in his company Geotech caused an inability to pay and that those investments were socially/economically beneficial and thus a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal rejected his reasonable‑excuse case, found insufficiency of funds was not established as a reasonable excuse, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the surcharges and prescribed interest. The Tribunal also held it has no power to review or alter the quantum of interest or the statutory surcharge percentages, though HMRC has a statutory discretion under TMA s 59C(11) to mitigate or remit.

Daniel Jaszczyszyn v Director of Border Revenue [2011] UKFTT 126 (TC) 16 February 2011 This appeal concerns the refusal to restore a BMW seized by the UK Border Agency after officers found an artificial cavity in the bulkhead and ion‑scanner positives for class A drugs. The appellant's explanation that the cavity had housed a subwoofer was unsupported and expert evidence undermined it. The tribunal held the decision not to restore was one a reasonable decision‑maker could reach and dismissed the appeal, leaving the vehicle condemned as forfeit.

Mr Nicolas Adam John Walley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 120 (TC) 16 February 2011 This appeal concerned whether various VAT input tax claims made by Mr Walley related to his registered agricultural contracting business and whether a misdeclaration penalty should be upheld. The Tribunal found no immediate and direct nexus between the disputed costs and the registered business, dismissed the appeal on those input tax items, and reduced the penalty by 50%. A remaining partial-exemption issue was left to the parties to resolve or to re-apply.

Mrs Deborah N Evelyn v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 121 (TC) 16 February 2011 This appeal concerned a discovery assessment by HMRC disallowing business taper relief on a 2004 disposal of land that had been let on short-term "conacre" licences. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC validly made a discovery assessment under TMA 1970 s29 because the Appellant failed to prove her error was made in accordance with a prevailing practice. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the assessment increasing the tax due by £47,766.32 (of which £33,362.40 related to the disputed relief).

Mynt Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 162 (TC) 16 February 2011 Mynt Ltd claimed input VAT on numerous mobile‑phone export transactions in 2006; HMRC traced chains to alleged defaulters and denied/recovered the input tax. The Tribunal found the chains were contrived, the defaulters acted dishonestly to evade VAT, and Mynt (through its director) knew or should have known of the connection to fraud. Because Mynt had not taken adequate precautions, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused the input tax claims.

Next Group Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 122 (TC) 16 February 2011 Next charged a contingent "Brochure" fee that was automatically offset by a delivery credit when customers ordered; HMRC assessed those sums as consideration for standard‑rated delivered goods. The tribunal held the Brochure charge was illusory because the trigger for charging also triggered an equal credit, so the Brochure was not supplied for consideration and the amounts were instead consideration for the delivered goods. HMRC's abuse argument failed on the facts, and some assessments were time‑barred while others were upheld.

S & B Herba Foods Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 127 (TC) 16 February 2011 This appeal concerned a claimant seeking repayment of £35,053.44 of customs duty after tariff quota relief was not applied to part of an import of broken rice. The Tribunal held Article 239 did not entitle the importer to repayment because quota exhaustion, where all importers faced the same uncertainty until the Commission allocated the quota, was not a "special situation". The repayment claim was dismissed and the duty upheld.

Vehicle Control Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 125 (TC) 16 February 2011 This appeal concerned whether sums retained by Vehicle Control Services Ltd (VCS) from motorists on private land were damages for trespass (outside VAT) or taxable receipts. The Tribunal found VCS had no proprietary right to sue as principal and that the contested payments arose as contractual consideration under onsite signs and the licence with landowners, so were VAT‑able; alternatively, sums retained by VCS as agent would constitute agent remuneration and likewise be subject to VAT. The Tribunal dismissed VCS's contention that the receipts were damages for trespass.

Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 117 (TC) 15 February 2011 The Birmingham Hippodrome, a charity, sought repayment of VAT for 1990–4 Dec 1996. The Tribunal rejected HMRC's submission that the claim was an abusive reliance on Community law and held that s 81(3A) VATA permits HMRC to set off over‑claimed input tax from later periods (including the Theatre's large 2000–01 reclamation) against the historic repayment, reducing the net claim to nil and dismissing the appeal.

Express Food and Drinks Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 116 (TC) 15 February 2011 Express Food and Drinks Ltd appealed excise duty and VAT assessments and revocation of its registered-owner status after duty-suspended consignments left Gold Spot Ltd but did not reach the French consignee and accompanying AADs were falsified. The Tribunal found the excise duty point arose on removal from Gold Spot (Regulation 4) and that Express, by retaining legal ownership/responsibility and directing release and transport, "caused" the duty point within Regulation 7(2). The Tribunal upheld the excise and VAT assessments and dismissed the appeal against revocation.

Jeremy Stephen Tetley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 118 (TC) 15 February 2011 This appeal concerned whether HMRC validly made a discovery assessment under s.29 TMA for 2004/05 disallowing a claimed capital loss. The Tribunal found an insufficiency attributable to negligence, and that the information actually made available in the taxpayer's return and accompanying material would not have reasonably put an officer on notice of that insufficiency by the enquiry deadline. The discovery assessment was therefore upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Atlantic Electronics Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 276 (TC) 11 February 2011 This case concerned whether, in transitional appeals begun before 1 April 2009, the Tribunal should direct that the pre-2009 (1986) costs regime apply instead of Rule 10 of the 2009 Rules. The Tribunal held that the 2009 Rules apply from 1 April 2009 unless an express Schedule 3 paragraph 7(3) direction disapplies them, and dismissed HMRC’s late application to reinstate the 1986 Rule 29 because of delay and substantial post-commencement work. As a result only the limited costs heads in Rule 10(1) (wasted costs and unreasonable conduct) remain available.

George William McDonald Allan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 115 (TC) 11 February 2011 Mr Allan appealed HMRC's refusal to allow late payment of Class 3 National Insurance contributions for years 1953–1977 on the ground that his failure to pay resulted from ignorance or error rather than lack of due care and diligence. The Tribunal found his knowledge of the scheme was very limited, that brief sighting of an obscure card note did not establish failure to exercise due care, and allowed the appeal, leaving mechanics of payment to HMRC.

Keith Joseph-Lester t/a Scaffold Access Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 114 (TC) 11 February 2011 This appeal challenges HMRC's withdrawal of the appellant's gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme after multiple late PAYE payments during a sudden 2009 downturn in his scaffolding business. The Tribunal found the regulatory disregards did not apply but concluded the downturn was unforeseeable and the appellant had taken reasonable steps (overdraft/credit card use, staff reductions, pressing debtors, renegotiating creditors), so insufficiency of funds amounted to a reasonable excuse. The appeal was allowed and the withdrawal was not upheld; the Tribunal did not decide proportionality or whether HMRC has discretion to withdraw gross status.

Harry Gibson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 113 (TC) 10 February 2011 This appeal concerned a £100 late-filing penalty imposed on Mr Gibson for a CIS monthly return said by HMRC to have been received after the 19 December due date. The Tribunal accepted Mr Gibson's credible evidence that he posted the return on 15 December and applied the deeming rule in the Interpretation Act 1978 s 7 to treat proper posting as delivery in the ordinary course of post. HMRC produced no evidence to rebut that presumption, so the appeal was allowed and the penalty quashed.

Mr Simon Cooper v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 112 (TC) 10 February 2011 Mr Cooper appealed a default surcharge for late payment of his 2008–09 tax; HMRC received payment on 1 March 2010 (treated as 1 March) after the 28 February due date, making the surcharge provisions applicable. The Tribunal, after hearing in the appellant's absence under Rule 33, dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable excuse that persisted throughout the default period and rejecting the proportionality/Human Rights challenge; the surcharge was reduced on amendment to £413.43 and confirmed.

Mr Steve Moulton v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 111 (TC) 10 February 2011 Mr Moulton appealed HMRC’s amendment to his 2006/07 tax return disputing disallowance of an £8,400 vehicle-related expense allegedly paid to his mother. The First-tier Tribunal found he produced no reliable documentary or consistent oral evidence of payment and that the vehicle was provided under a private arrangement tied to renovation work for his mother, not an expense wholly and exclusively for his trade, and dismissed the appeal.

P A Lorber v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 110 (TC) 9 February 2011 Mr Lorber, a Brent councillor, appealed HMRC's disallowance of parts of his 2002/03 expense claims. The Tribunal allowed a one‑sixth apportionment of home expenses (£334.40) and allowed £1,200 for constituency communications (newsletters/street letters) as necessarily and exclusively incurred for his councillor duties, but disallowed child‑minding and subscriptions/publications claims. The decision accepts constituency communications may be allowable even if they bear party labels so long as any party advantage is incidental.

(1)Donal Falvey(2)Vivien Falvey(3)Bernard Carpenter(4)Barbara Carpenter v Director of Border Revenue [2011] UKFTT 108 (TC) 7 February 2011 This appeal challenged the Director of Border Revenue's refusal to restore 18 kg of hand‑rolling tobacco seized at Dover on 10 December 2009 as held for a "commercial purpose". The Tribunal accepted the UKBA's view that the quantity, the appellants' travel pattern (including repeated cross‑Channel trips) and inconsistent accounts supported a commercial purpose and that the decision not to restore was one that could reasonably have been reached. The appeal was dismissed.

Bridges Cleaning & Hygiene Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 109 (TC) 7 February 2011 Bridges Cleaning & Hygiene Services Ltd appealed against two default VAT surcharges (10% £578.91 and 15% £711.85) for late returns/payments for periods ending 31 October and 31 December 2009. The Tribunal found Bridges in default, rejected its contention that ordinary cash‑flow shortfalls amounted to a reasonable excuse, and found alleged 2009 telephone requests for extensions were not proven. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharges upheld.

H & Y Colbran v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 175 (TC) 7 February 2011 This appeal concerned £100 penalties on each partner for late delivery of the partnership tax return for year to 5 April 2008. The tribunal found the paper return was received on 30 January 2009, after the 31 October 2008 paper filing date, and that the representative partner (via his agent) had no reasonable excuse for filing late because the agent had decided in December 2008 not to obtain the required third‑party electronic filing software and to file by paper. The penalties were confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Pet Essentials v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 161 (TC) 7 February 2011 This appeal challenged £100 penalties imposed on each partner for filing the partnership return for year ended 5 April 2008 after the paper filing deadline. The tribunal found the paper filing deadline (31 October 2008) applied, the signed paper return was received late (30 January 2009), there was no reasonable excuse, and the penalties were correctly charged. The tribunal also held it was not bound by earlier First‑tier Tribunal decisions relied on by the appellants.

S C Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 7 February 2011 This appeal concerned £100 penalties imposed on each partner for filing the partnership tax return late for the year ended 5 April 2008. The tribunal found the paper filing date (31 October 2008) rather than the electronic date applied to the partnership and that the signed paper return was received late (30 January 2009), so the penalties were correctly charged. The tribunal held there was no reasonable excuse for late submission given the agent’s decision to file on paper after failing to obtain third‑party software. The appeal was dismissed.

G D & Mrs D Lewis t/a Russell Francis Interiors v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 107 (TC) 4 February 2011 This appeal concerned a VAT penalty under Schedule 24 imposed after the appellants mistakenly reclaimed input VAT based on an incorrect tax point. The Tribunal found HMRC had misapplied paragraph 11 by not actively considering whether the appellants' facts amounted to "special circumstances" and concluded that the one‑off nature of the high‑value transaction together with the low real likelihood of revenue loss did constitute special circumstances. The penalty was reduced from 15% to 7.5% of the potential lost revenue and the appeal was allowed in part.

HSP Financial Planning Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 106 (TC) 4 February 2011 This appeal concerned whether goodwill acquired by HSP Financial Planning Ltd on 30 January 2004 qualified for tax amortisation under para 118(1)(b) of Schedule 29, specifically whether the three vendors were "related parties" "at the time of the acquisition" because they became entitled to shares under the Sale Agreement. The Tribunal held the Sale Agreement created mutual, simultaneous obligations so that the vendors were entitled to the consideration shares on formation of the contract and thus were related parties at the time of acquisition. The appeal was dismissed and the disallowance of the goodwill amortisation upheld.

ASI Properties Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 105 (TC) 3 February 2011 ASI Properties Ltd appealed a £82,940 tax-geared penalty for filing its corporation tax return 603 days late, arguing the delay was caused by their accountant leaving, the director's divorce and unresolved rollover relief. The First-tier Tribunal found no reasonable excuse that persisted throughout the default period, rejected the aggregation of those difficulties as excusing the delay, and upheld the penalty. The appeal was dismissed.

David Owen and Son v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 223 (TC) 3 February 2011 This appeal concerned two £100 penalties imposed on partners for filing the partnership return for year to 5 April 2008 late. The tribunal found the partnership had to file electronically via HMRC‑specified third‑party software, the agent learned of that requirement in mid/late December 2008, chose to file by paper which arrived after the paper deadline, and therefore there was no reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties upheld.

Harish Patel v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 104 (TC) 3 February 2011 Mr Harish Patel applied under s 55 TMA to postpone tax assessed for 1989‑90 to 2007‑08. The tribunal found there were reasonable grounds to believe he had been overcharged for 1989‑90 to 1995‑96 (assessments described as Case V interest) and allowed postponement for those years, but dismissed the postponement application for 1996‑97 to 2007‑08 (described as Foreign Income).

Heronslea Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 102 (TC) 3 February 2011 Heronslea Ltd appealed a £100 CIS late-filing penalty for the month ended 5 June 2010, asserting the monthly return had been posted in time; HMRC recorded receipt on 22 June 2010 and contended the filing was late. The First-tier Tribunal accepted the director’s credible evidence about the company’s regular practice and holiday-related posting, found the return was posted by no later than 14 June 2010, and concluded HMRC had not rebutted the statutory presumption of delivery in the ordinary course of post, allowing the appeal and setting aside the penalty.

Mr Kevin P O'Brien v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 103 (TC) 3 February 2011 This case concerns applications for permission to bring late appeals against HMRC income tax assessments issued in March 2009. The appellant lodged appeals over 15 months late and provided no satisfactory explanation or reasonable excuse for the delay. The Tribunal refused permission to accept the late appeals and dismissed them.

P A Lorber (Decision No.1) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 101 (TC) 3 February 2011 This appeal concerned whether interest on bank accounts in Paul and Susan Lorber’s joint names was taxable on Paul and whether large accounts held in the children’s names were settlements taxable on Paul under ss.660A/660B. The Tribunal held Paul failed to prove HMRC had agreed the joint-account income belonged solely to Susan so those assessments stood, but found on the balance of probabilities that the children’s accounts derived from the grandparents (Adolf and Berta) so Paul was not the settlor and the settlor-based assessments under ss.660A/660B were dismissed.

Alan Jeffrey Segal v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 99 (TC) 2 February 2011 This case concerned HMRC's amendment of Mr Segal's 2004-05 self-assessment to reflect PCS payments and resulting additional tax/NIC, and HMRC's withdrawal by consent of discovery assessments for 2002-03 and 2003-04. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant had underdeclared income for 2004-05, that HMRC's calculation of taxable profit was reasonable, and that the enquiry was opened within time; the appeal against the 2004-05 amendment was dismissed and the earlier years' assessments were withdrawn by HMRC.

Colin Humphreys v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 98 (TC) 2 February 2011 This case concerns an appeal against a 5% late payment surcharge following a paper self-assessment posted on 15 January 2010. The tribunal found HMRC had materially misled the appellant by promoting online filing without disclosing that his return required specialist third‑party software and that local staff failed to warn him he would need to calculate tax himself. The tribunal accepted the appellant’s evidence, held that misleading information from HMRC amounted to a "reasonable excuse" for late payment, rejected the requirement that "reasonable excuse" must be an exceptional circumstance, and allowed the appeal (surcharge set aside).

George Lupson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 100 (TC) 2 February 2011 This is an application for permission to appeal out of time against HMRC closure and assessment notices dated 18 March 2008. The Tribunal found significant doubt that the Appellant actually received those notices, considered the Appellant's medical history and other circumstances, and exercised its discretion to grant leave to appeal out of time in the interests of justice. The decision records full reasons and notes parties' right to seek permission to appeal.

Centralised Services (Valves) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 173 (TC) 31 January 2011 Centralised Services (Valves) Ltd failed to file its P35 on time and HMRC imposed an automatic late-filing penalty; the company’s out-of-time appeal was permitted but dismissed. The tribunal held the company’s reasons (bookkeeper on maternity leave, decision to "hibernate" the business, belief in a forthcoming repayment, and alleged misdirected correspondence) did not amount to a "reasonable excuse" for lateness. The tribunal rejected HMRC’s requirement of "exceptional circumstances" and applied the ordinary meaning of "reasonable excuse."

Edward Ingle v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 97 (TC) 31 January 2011 This appeal challenges HMRC’s refusal to restore an Isuzu Trooper seized after a fuel sample showed marked rebated (red) diesel in the tank. The Tribunal found the appellant had responsibility for the vehicle and paid for the fuel, rejected his claim of a reasonable excuse, found no exceptional hardship, and held HMRC’s decision not to restore the vehicle was not unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed.

Mr Nicholas Barnes v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 95 (TC) 31 January 2011 This appeal concerned a packaged gilt stock‑lending scheme used by Mr Barnes to obtain a £1.2m coupon shelter. The Tribunal held that the accrued income provisions (ss 710–714) applied so Mr Barnes was prima facie taxable on the coupon, that the stock‑lending disregard (s263B TCGA 1992 / s727 TA 1988) did not apply because the 100.01% redelivery obligation meant the redelivered securities were not the "same quantities", and that any manufactured interest deduction under sch 23A TA 1988 is limited to the amount of interest remaining chargeable after the accrued income allowance. The appeal was dismissed.

Abbey (Manchester) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 90 (TC) 28 January 2011 This case concerns a claim by Abbey (Manchester) Ltd for a VAT repayment of £967,802.50 arising from two back‑to‑back mobile phone transactions in April 2006. HMRC traced the deals into widespread MTIC/contra‑trading frauds and established a substantial tax loss in the related chains. The FTT found that Mr Ali of Abbey knew (or that a reasonable businessman would have known) the transactions were connected with fraud and dismissed the repayment claim. Costs were reserved.

Alan Kenyon v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 91 (TC) 28 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether a self‑employed pipe fitter (Mr Kenyon) could deduct travelling and subsistence expenses and whether HMRC could raise out‑of‑time discovery assessments. The Tribunal found Mr Kenyon's home was his base so travel to varied sites was incurred wholly and exclusively for the trade and allowed the travel costs, but disallowed bed-and-breakfast accommodation/subsistence as not wholly and exclusively for business. The Tribunal also held that HMRC validly opened enquiries in later years and could make discovery assessments for earlier years where negligence in subsequent returns was found.

Maincourse Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 89 (TC) 28 January 2011 The Tribunal considered whether Maincourse Limited had validly appealed HMRC's assessment. It concluded the appellant's correspondence and a Notice of Appeal failed to specify grounds as required by statute and Tribunal rules, so the Notice of Appeal was invalid and there was no appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal dismissed the purported appeal and informed the parties of the right to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39.

Maximum Networks v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 93 (TC) 28 January 2011 This appeal concerned Maximum Networks' claim for repayment of £1,063,650 input VAT on two June 2006 mobile‑phone deals which HMRC said formed part of a contra‑trading MTIC fraud. The Tribunal found the transactions were integral to a fraud centred on Famecraft, that the appellant both knew and should have known the only reasonable explanation was connection with fraudulent VAT evasion, and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC's refusal to repay the input tax.

Roots 89 Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 94 (TC) 28 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether Root 89 Ltd's 16 VAT repayment claims for April 2006 were connected to fraudulent VAT losses and whether the appellant knew or ought to have known of that connection. The Tribunal found HMRC proved tracing from each deal to known defaulters or contra-traders by banking, invoice and circumstantial evidence, and accepted that the appellant had actual knowledge (alternatively would have to have known) of the fraud. The appellant's input tax claims were denied for all 16 deals and HMRC were awarded costs.

Sean Reed v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 92 (TC) 28 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Reed was self‑employed or an employee for 2003/04–2004/05 and whether his Grimsby home or his rented Birmingham accommodation was his business base for determining deductibility of travel and subsistence. The Tribunal found he was self‑employed, that his home in Grimsby was his base as an itinerant worker, and that his travel and Birmingham accommodation expenses were incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily in the course of his business, so the appeals were allowed (2005/06 had been conceded by HMRC).

European Tour Operators Association v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 88 (TC) 26 January 2011 The Tribunal held that the European Tour Operators Association's membership subscriptions are VAT-exempt under Item 1(d) Group 9 VATA because the association's primary purpose is to make representations to government and European institutions on matters affecting members' business interests. The Tribunal accepted the parties' agreed geographic interpretation that "Government" includes EU institutions where representations have effects in the UK, and found Note 5 did not disapply the exemption given the members' businesses' direct connection with the association's purposes. The appeal was allowed; detailed VAT calculations were not determined and parties may seek permission to appeal.

S Patrick Erdal v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 87 (TC) 26 January 2011 This appeal concerned the open market value on 31 March 1982 of small minority holdings (Ordinary and "A" Ordinary £1 shares) in Tullis Russell & Co Ltd for tax purposes. The Tribunal accepted contemporaneous board minutes showing adjusted pre‑tax profits of about £1.4m, applied a price/earnings ratio of 14 and a 40% discount for lack of marketability/minority interest, and valued each £1 Ordinary and "A" Ordinary share at £2.42. The Tribunal made no separate deduction for non‑voting status given the very small size of the holdings and left practical tax consequences to be agreed by the parties.

Ican Finance v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 81 (TC) 25 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Stephen Hare’s VAT registration covered both his finance broking and residential lettings businesses and whether exempt rent income should be included in Flat Rate Scheme turnover. The Tribunal held VAT registration applies to the person’s total business activities and that "relevant turnover" for the Flat Rate Scheme includes exempt supplies such as rent. HMRC’s assessments and interest under s.74 VATA were upheld and the appeal was dismissed.

Kevin Sharp v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 85 (TC) 25 January 2011 Kevin Sharp appealed a 5% default surcharge imposed for late payment of 2008/09 tax after he used monies set aside for tax to keep his building business and employees afloat following the liquidation of his main contractor. The Tribunal found he had a reasonable excuse for the late payment, allowed the appeal and set aside the surcharge.

Khalid M Sudhan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 78 (TC) 25 January 2011 This case concerns Mr Khalid M Sudhan's appeals against a 2005–06 closure notice and discovery assessments for 2003–04, 2004–05, 2006–07 and 2007–08, where HMRC had adjusted profits based on estimated private mileage, average fares and tips. The First-tier Tribunal found no evidence to displace HMRC's revised figures in their 1 February 2010 review for 2005–06 and applied the presumption of continuity to confirm the discovery assessments for the other years. The Tribunal also upheld the penalties at the levels set out in HMRC's review. The appeals were dismissed; a right to apply for permission to appeal remains.

Martin & Gaynor O'Hearne Properties Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 86 (TC) 25 January 2011 This case concerned an application by Martin & Gaynor O'Hearne Properties Ltd for permission to appeal out of time against HMRC's completion of enquiry and self-assessment amendment concerning disposal valuations of two properties. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine the substantive valuation issues (those lie with the Upper Tribunal) and dealt only with the late-appeal application. The Tribunal found the company had no reasonable excuse for a c.15-month delay because communications to its authorised agent imputed knowledge to the company, and refused permission to appeal out of time.

Mill House Management UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 83 (TC) 25 January 2011 This appeal challenged HMRC’s refusal to accept belated options to tax two properties and to register the appellant for VAT. The tribunal found the appellant did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a positive election to opt to tax had been made and notified, and that HMRC’s refusals were not unreasonable. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s decisions upheld.

Palmers of Oakham v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 82 (TC) 25 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether building works for a detached triple garage with a first-floor games room were zero-rated as construction of a dwelling or standard-rated. The tribunal found the house and garage formed one development under a single planning permission and were therefore "constructed at the same time" for zero-rating purposes; zero rating applied to the ground‑floor triple garage only, not to the first-floor games room or locked store. The appeal was allowed in part and the parties were directed to agree apportionment or reapply within 28 days.

Richfield Fashion Co Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 25 January 2011 This appeal concerned £600 of penalties for late filing of Richfield Fashion's 2008/09 P35 Return. The tribunal found the employer remained primarily responsible for timely filing despite using an agent, that the agent's failure to submit the Return by the statutory date was not a reasonable excuse, and it upheld the Commissioners' decision not to reduce or waive the interim and final penalties. The appeal was dismissed and the £600 penalty upheld.

Wai Yau Chan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 84 (TC) 25 January 2011 The Appellant, sole proprietor of a restaurant, applied for a closure notice to end an HMRC enquiry into his 2008 self‑assessment return after disputes over Schedule 36 information notices and delays in providing documents. The Tribunal refused the closure notice, finding there were reasonable grounds to keep the enquiry open (notably missing material information and late provision of bank statements), and ordered the outstanding appeal against the amended Schedule 36 notice to be listed for hearing. No costs were awarded.

Davies Construction v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 77 (TC) 24 January 2011 Davies Construction (Mr Davies) failed CIS compliance by not paying a 2007/08 balancing payment, a 2008/09 payment on account and a surcharge. He relied on cashflow difficulties (slow contractor payments, limited overdraft, prioritising workers/suppliers) and argued “reasonable excuse”; the First-tier Tribunal found him honest but held there was no reasonable excuse and dismissed the appeal.

Eurostar Telecom Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 75 (TC) 21 January 2011 Eurostar Telecom appealed HMRC's refusal to repay input VAT of £260,855.35 arising from three July 2006 export transactions. The tribunal found each purchase was part of deal chains connected to VAT losses caused by fraud and that Eurostar either knew of that connection or ought to have known. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's refusal to repay was upheld; costs were awarded to the Commissioners.

KD Ductworks Installations v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 76 (TC) 21 January 2011 This appeal concerned ten monthly CIS returns that HMRC said were filed late, giving rise to £4,400 of statutory penalties. The appellants relied on verbal notifications and alleged postings or nil returns but produced no proof of postage or retained copies; HMRC’s records showed late receipt. The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalties.

Barratt, Goff and Tomlinson and The Law Society as Intervenor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 71 (TC) 20 January 2011 This case concerned whether fees paid by a solicitor firm (Barratt, Goff & Tomlinson) for medical records and medico‑legal reports, which were recharged to clients itemised and without profit, were disbursements excluded from VAT under Article 79(c) of the VAT Directive or part of the firm's own VATable legal services. The tribunal accepted the firm's factual case that the payments were made in the client's name and on the client's behalf, booked through the firm's office/suspense account, and thus qualified as disbursements. The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded to Barratts against the Commissioners.

My Secrets Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 72 (TC) 20 January 2011 This appeal concerned repayment of input VAT claimed by My Secrets Ltd for four June 2006 purchases and three July 2006 purchases traced into MTIC chains. The Tribunal found the June transactions were connected to VAT fraud attributable to a defaulter (RSSA) and that the appellant ought to have known the only reasonable explanation was fraud, so the June claim was disallowed. For the July transactions the Tribunal found a tax loss caused by the chain's defaulter (V2) but concluded HMRC had not proved V2 intended to evade VAT in respect of the appellant's purchases, so the July claim was allowed. The result was dismissal of the June claim and repayment for the July deals.

Pressuretech Transport Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 74 (TC) 20 January 2011 Pressuretech appealed a 5% civil penalty (£717.35) imposed for a late excise return/payment for 1 Jan–31 Mar 2010. The tribunal found the late submission and payment resulted from insufficiency of funds caused by the company’s deliberate use of customer payments to finance the business and its deliberate non‑use of available overdraft facilities, held there was no reasonable excuse, and dismissed the appeal.

T and S Arnold t/a Wold Chalet and Caravan Park v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 73 (TC) 20 January 2011 This appeal concerned two £100 penalties imposed on partners T and S Arnold for late submission of a partnership return for the year ended 5 April 2008. The paper return was received after the paper filing deadline, and the tribunal found the representative partner and his agent knew that on‑line filing required third‑party software and consciously chose to file by paper. The tribunal rejected the claimed reasonable excuse and confirmed the penalties. The tribunal also held it was not bound by the First‑Tier Tribunal decisions cited by the appellants.

Wakefield College v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 70 (TC) 20 January 2011 Wakefield College appealed HMRC’s refusal to issue a zero‑rating certificate for construction of the skillsXchange, arguing the building was intended solely for non‑business charitable education and that the college was a "body governed by public law" under Article 13(1). The Tribunal found the college carried on economic/business activities (fee‑paying education, café, hairdressing, university contract teaching) so the construction was not solely for non‑business charitable purposes and zero‑rating did not apply; it also held the college was not a body governed by public law for Directive purposes. The appeal was dismissed.

Deutsche Bank Group Services (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 66 (TC) 19 January 2011 This case concerned a coordinated share/bonus scheme implemented by Deutsche Bank involving DBI, Investec and advisers, and whether employees had taxable earnings before 6 February 2004, whether the C1 shares were "restricted securities", and whether statutory exemptions in Chapter 2 applied. The tribunal found employees did not have entitlement to the bonuses before 6 February 2004, the C1 shares were restricted securities because genuine time‑limited restrictions reduced market value, and DB was not shown to have statutory control or association with DBI; viewing the Scheme as a whole it was a preordained tax‑avoidance arrangement and the claimed Chapter 2 outcomes were not allowed. The appeal was dismissed.

Mrs M E McMillin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 65 (TC) 19 January 2011 Mrs McMillin appealed HMRC’s refusal to allow capital allowances for items and the cottages at Southwaite Green; disputed items were stone ground floors, windows, paint/decorating and an earth bund. The tribunal found the cottages are not plant and each disputed item either falls within List A (building fabric) or otherwise does not meet List C criteria (or is excluded by section 22/23), and dismissed the appeal.

Farzad Fard v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 63 (TC) 18 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether shares transferred within a family qualified as "subscribed for" by the taxpayer so as to attract capital loss relief, and challenged HMRC's pre-check repayment practice and recovery/interest treatment. The Tribunal found the 66,668 shares had been issued to the appellant's father and later transferred by family transaction without involvement of the company, so they were not "subscribed for" by the appellant and the larger loss claim was disallowed. The appeal was dismissed; only a small loss for shares actually subscribed for was allowable, and HMRC's recovery of the excess repayments stands.

Mr Mayur Bodani v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 61 (TC) 18 January 2011 This appeal concerned default surcharges under s.59 TMA for late tax payments due in 2007–08 that were not paid until 12 June 2009. The Tribunal found the appellant had a reasonable excuse up to 4 February 2008 (as conceded by HMRC) but that the excuse did not extend to 12 June 2009, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the surcharges.

Murdoch UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 62 (TC) 18 January 2011 This appeal challenged HMRC’s refusal to backdate authorisation for the VAT Flat Rate Scheme to dates earlier than the date HMRC granted (1 June 2007). The Tribunal found HMRC’s refusal reasonable under the guidance (FRS 3300) because the trader had already calculated VAT under a different method and the prospect of paying less tax alone did not amount to exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal accepted that visiting officers had not advised the appellant about the Scheme but held that did not establish grounds for retrospective authorisation, and dismissed the appeal.

Paul T Stavrou v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 59 (TC) 18 January 2011 This appeal concerns whether interest on a Birmingham Midshires mortgage was deductible as incurred wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the appellant’s trade (a fish-and-chip shop) and/or property business. HMRC amended the 2004–05 return and made discovery assessments for 2005–06 and 2006–07 disallowing the interest; the tribunal found no business purpose for the Midshires mortgage, upheld HMRC’s procedural steps, and dismissed the appeal.

Paul Whight v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 60 (TC) 18 January 2011 This is an appeal by Mr Paul Whight against a paragraph 1 Schedule 36 notice requiring production of original documents to verify his claimed non‑residence after a large share sale. The FTT held the amended notice sought documents reasonably required to check the taxpayer's tax position, rejected the argument that HMRC were confined to the IR20 concessions, dismissed the appeal and ordered production within 30 days. The taxpayer's application to treat the case as complex was adjourned.

Thames Valley Renovations v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 69 (TC) 18 January 2011 Thames Valley Renovations Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to grant CIS gross payment status because the company's directors filed personal self‑assessment returns late. The First‑tier Tribunal found the directors had reasonably relied on their accountants' advice that returns were unnecessary, acted promptly to file when they discovered the error, and therefore the late filings were excused and the company met the compliance test; the appeal was allowed.

The Bowcombe Shoot The Upcerne Shoot v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 64 (TC) 18 January 2011 This appeal concerned two non-profit shooting syndicates who sought indemnity costs after HMRC had investigated them, issued and later withdrew VAT assessments and penalties. The tribunal found HMRC had been imperfect and sometimes delayed but not so unreasonable as to justify indemnity costs; it ordered HMRC to pay the Appellants’ appeal costs on the standard basis and the Appellants to pay HMRC’s costs of the indemnity-application itself on the standard basis.

Cell Trading (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 17 January 2011 Cell Trading sought repayment of £6,630,969.70 of input VAT for 81 transactions in 2006. The Tribunal found pervasive features (rapid back-to-back trades, circular FCIB cash flows, small mark‑ups, inadequate due diligence and prior HMRC warnings) and preferred HMRC's witnesses over the appellant and its director. It held that director Mohammed Rasool ought to have known the transactions were connected to VAT fraud and dismissed the appeal, awarding expenses to HMRC.

Euro Trading Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 56 (TC) 17 January 2011 Euro Trading appealed a C18 customs debt of £10,137.85 arising from failure to submit a C99 bill of discharge within 30 days after imports under Inward Processing Relief. The tribunal found Euro Trading had been on notice of the requirement (and had received a prior warning), failed to take adequate steps to ensure timely receipt of the C99 by NIRU, and therefore was obviously negligent under Article 859. The appeal was dismissed and the C18 debt confirmed.

John Johnstone v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 57 (TC) 17 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether income from an Imperial Homes contract belonged to Kinnera Homes Ltd or to John Johnstone as a sole trader and whether Johnstone had produced sufficient records to rebut HMRC's assessment of £14,214. The Tribunal found invoices and payments were made to Johnstone personally, no contract or paperwork showed Kinnera carried out the work, and Johnstone's poor/haphazard records meant he did not rebut the assessment. The HMRC assessment was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Mr C Runham & Ms C Naramore v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 55 (TC) 17 January 2011 This appeal concerned a £100 penalty for late filing of an SDLT1 return after a property purchase on 19 March 2010. The Tribunal found the appellants' solicitors had posted a completed SDLT1 and cheque on 19 March, that the documents were likely lost in the post, and that the appellants promptly resubmitted electronically and paid on 7 May 2010. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and quashed the penalty and associated interest.

Mr James Oduntan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 54 (TC) 17 January 2011 The appellant challenged a Schedule 36 information notice and sought an adjournment. The Tribunal refused the adjournment (service was adequate and no prejudice shown) and held the Notice was reasonably required to check the 2003–04 self-assessment return given unexplained UK interest, large mortgage/hire-purchase payments and very low declared income. The Tribunal found no procedural unfairness or misconduct in the conduct of the appeal and dismissed the appellant's grounds for resisting the Notice.

R P Building Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 53 (TC) 17 January 2011 This appeal concerned late filing of CIS returns for the months ended 5 October 2007 to 5 April 2008, which were not filed until 26 August 2009. The Tribunal found the appellant had no reasonable excuse for the delays, rejected arguments about reliance on initial advisers and being new to the UK, and upheld statutory penalties totaling £9,300. The Tribunal also held it had no discretion to reduce or remit those penalties. Permission to appeal may be sought within 56 days.

Miss Alexandra Bradley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 49 (TC) 14 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether a flat transferred to Miss Bradley in 1998 qualified for principal private residence relief or as job‑related accommodation when sold in 2003. The Tribunal found she never habitually occupied the flat (being in full‑time education and letting the property) and there was no evidence the accommodation was provided by reason of employment. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s 2003/04 assessment confirmed.

Mr A N Pericleous v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 52 (TC) 14 January 2011 This appeal concerned a £100 penalty for late submission of an SDLT1 after completion of a property purchase on 12 November 2009. The appellant produced a covering letter, cheque and solicitor's evidence saying an SDLT1 was sent to HMRC on 30 November 2009; HMRC's records showed a paper return received on 18 December 2009 with a different UTRN prefix. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's evidence that a valid SDLT1 was delivered within 30 days and allowed the appeal, quashing the penalty.

Ms Parveen Azam v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 50 (TC) 14 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether Ms Azam’s purchases and management of multiple residential properties amounted to a trade (an "adventure in the nature of trade") so that losses could be set against general income. The Tribunal applied the badges of trade and found, on the balance of probabilities, that the properties were held as rental/investment assets and not trading stock. Consequently the appeal was dismissed and the HMRC closure notices upheld.

Wall Panelling Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 51 (TC) 14 January 2011 This case concerns penalties for late filing of an Employer's Annual Return (P35) for 2008/09 where Wall Panelling Ltd filed many months late and relied on its accountants. The Tribunal held that delegation to an agent does not relieve the taxpayer's filing obligation and, given a prior default and earlier penalty notices, the company's reliance on its accountant did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The appeals were dismissed and the penalties upheld.

Eyedial Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 47 (TC) 13 January 2011 Eyedial Limited appealed HMRC's refusal to repay input VAT of £670,075 relating to seven cross‑border broker deals; HMRC had traced the chains to defaulters or a contra‑trader and had repeatedly warned Eyedial about MTIC risks. The Tribunal found the transactions displayed multiple hallmarks of MTIC fraud and that Eyedial's director ought to have realised the only reasonable explanation was fraud, so the appeal was dismissed and HMRC's costs awarded.

Hoylake Cottage Hospital Charitable Trust v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 48 (TC) 13 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether construction of a separate kitchen and laundry block formed part of the original construction of a newly built nursing home and so qualified for zero‑rating under Group 5, Schedule 8 VATA 1994. The tribunal found the kitchen and laundry were a continuation of the planned phased development, met the functional test of being integral to the hospital’s operation, and that the c.18‑month gap after developers’ liability ended did not break the temporal connection. The appeal was allowed and the works were treated as zero‑rated; costs were reserved.

Dr Adeboyr Samson Jolaoso v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 44 (TC) 12 January 2011 Dr Jolaoso appealed HMRC adjustments treating the whole capital gain on sale of a leasehold flat as his and disallowing most claimed motoring expenses. The Tribunal found title, mortgage and conveyancing documents named him alone and no contemporaneous written declaration or corroboration of a joint beneficial interest was produced, so the gain arose wholly to him. The appellant also failed to substantiate business use of motoring expenses, and the Tribunal allowed only 10% of those costs. The appeal was dismissed.

Stewart Fraser Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 46 (TC) 12 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether three waivers of a director's loan account in a close family-owned company were payments derived from employment (and thus subject to Class 1 NICs) or distributions to the majority shareholder. The Tribunal found the appellant produced no evidence that the waivers were made in the director's capacity as shareholder and concluded the write-offs arose from the director's employment, confirming HMRC's Section 8 NIC assessments for 2004/05, 2005/06 and 2007/08. The appeal was dismissed.

Young's Recycling Group Limited and Angel Day (Third Party) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 45 (TC) 12 January 2011 This case concerned whether Mrs Angela Day was entitled to Statutory Maternity Pay (SMP) from 18 May 2008 and whether the employer (Young's Recycling Group Ltd) had in fact paid SMP and accounted for tax and National Insurance so as to displace an HMRC ruling that SMP was payable to 14 February 2009. The Tribunal found Mrs Day employed until 15 July 2008 and, in the absence of any written evidence showing payment of SMP and proper tax/NIC accounting (or documentary proof of any binding compromise), upheld HMRC’s ruling that SMP was payable for the stated period.

Fanfield Limited Thexton Training Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 42 (TC) 11 January 2011 This Tribunal considered two linked appeals by small trading companies (Fanfield and Thexton) about whether modest bank interest they received had to be included in "relevant turnover" under the VAT Flat Rate Scheme. HMRC treated the interest as consideration for exempt supplies under Group 5 and included it; the companies argued the interest was outside the scope of VAT. The Tribunal held that, on the facts, the placement of funds was not activity carried out "in the course or furtherance" of the appellants' businesses and the interest was outside the scope of VAT. The appeals were allowed.

Grattan Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 31 (TC) 11 January 2011 Grattan sought repayment of VAT paid on supplies made from 1 April 1973 to 31 December 1977 and claimed compound interest. The tribunal considered whether Article 8(a) of the Second Directive or EU principles gave directly effective rights to retrospective reductions of the taxable amount pre-1 January 1978 and whether EU law requires compound interest; it found insufficient confidence on the pre-1978 point and made a preliminary reference to the ECJ, and it stayed the compound-interest element pending the ECJ’s ruling in related proceedings. Domestically, the tribunal held s10(2) Finance Act 1972 did not, alone, permit the retrospective reductions and, subject to EU law, ss78/80 VATA do not provide for compound interest enforceable in the tribunal.

Mr A W Kerr/Grantham House v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 40 (TC) 11 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether Mr Kerr carried on a trade in the year to 5 April 2007 in relation to Grantham House and whether claimed trading losses were deductible. The Tribunal found a trade had commenced on the first public opening and that trading was carried on commercially with a view to profit, but some claimed expenses were not wholly for business use and required apportionment to reflect private living accommodation. The appeal was allowed in part, with losses permitted subject to deduction for private-use costs.

Mr Enda Heatley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 41 (TC) 11 January 2011 This appeal concerned a £100 penalty for filing a CIS monthly return six days late. The appellant asserted postal delay but produced no proof of postage despite a prior warning to provide such evidence; HMRC’s review and the Tribunal found no reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty confirmed.

Mr William Bate v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 39 (TC) 11 January 2011 This appeal concerned HMRC amendments to partnership tax returns for 1998/99–2001/02 made by discovery assessments based on findings from a 2002/03 enquiry. The Tribunal held HMRC had properly made the discovery-based amendments and the appellant failed to produce contemporaneous evidence to show the unidentified receipts were confined to 2002/03. The appeals were dismissed and the amendments confirmed.

Mrs Karen O'Carroll v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 43 (TC) 11 January 2011 Mrs O'Carroll appealed a penalty surcharge for unpaid 2008/09 tax of £16,474.98 where £806.83 was assessed after the surcharge trigger date. She and the company she directed suffered unexpected business failures (bank-imposed charges, frozen accounts and administrators) together with personal difficulties, and the First-tier Tribunal found these amounted to a "reasonable excuse" for non-payment. The Tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the surcharge.

TNT (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 38 (TC) 10 January 2011 TNT (UK) Ltd appealed a C18 Post Clearance Demand issued by HMRC for duty and VAT on 52 import entries made under details supplied by a contact claiming to act for Bola Travel and Freight Ltd. The Tribunal found the VAT number used belonged to Afritrade, BTFL had been dissolved, no bills of discharge were submitted and the transactions formed part of a fraud by persons unknown. TNT was held not validly empowered to represent the true importer, was deemed to have acted in its own name under Article 5(4), and therefore was the debtor under Article 204; the appeal was dismissed.

Lars Sjumarken v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 37 (TC) 7 January 2011 This appeal concerned whether shares and a cash payment received by Mr Sjumarken on redundancy were tax‑approved (and thus exempt) and whether a binding compromise with HMRC was made by telephone on 3 March 2009. The tribunal found the SIP and CIP payments were earnings taxable for income tax and NICs and that no legally binding compromise had been reached. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's closure notice increasing the tax was upheld.

Lyle Dicker Grace v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 5 January 2011 This case concerns whether Mr Lyle Dicker Grace, a long‑haul British Airways pilot who retained a UK house while setting up a home in South Africa from August 1997, was resident (and therefore ordinarily resident) in the UK for tax years 1997/98–2002/03. The First‑tier Tribunal, on remittal, found that his regular, predictable short periods in the UK connected with continuing employment and the quality and use of his UK accommodation meant he remained UK resident for those years. The Tribunal rejected that s336 ICTA 1988 (temporary purpose exclusion) assisted Mr Grace and concluded there was no sufficient distinct break to end UK residence.

MBF Design Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 35 (TC) 5 January 2011 This case concerned whether Mr Fitzpatrick, supplied to Airbus via intermediaries, would have been an employee and employed earner under a hypothetical direct contract for NICs and income tax. The tribunal found that, applying the statutory hypothesis and considering contractual terms and practical outworkings (personal service/substitution, mutuality, control, and business-on-own-account), the notional contract would not make him an employee or employed earner. HMRC’s determinations were overturned and the appeals for the years in issue were allowed.

Nasir Bashir v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 33 (TC) 4 January 2011 This case concerns an application for permission to appeal out of time against a closure notice issued to Mr Bashir on 3 March 2009. The Tribunal found that there was substantial delay and lack of cooperation by the taxpayer and his advisers, that a 15 April 2009 letter did not reach HMRC or purport to appeal the closure notice, and refused permission to bring a late appeal. The decision confirms that the closure notice stands and notes the right to seek permission to appeal the Tribunal’s refusal.

Nicholas Paul South & Helen South t/a Nick South Carpentry & Joinery v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 34 (TC) 4 January 2011 This appeal concerned £100 penalties each for late filing of the 2008/09 partnership tax return. The Tribunal found HMRC had validly given notice by posting the return to the partnership's last known address, the paper return received on 31 January 2010 was 92 days late, and the appellants had no reasonable excuse (their agents' lack of the UTR did not excuse lateness). The appeal was dismissed and the penalties were confirmed.

Mark McDowall v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 28 (TC) 30 December 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC's cancellation of Mr McDowall's Gross Payment Status under the Construction Industry Scheme for the qualifying period 25.05.08–21.05.09 on grounds of non‑compliance with tax payment obligations. The Tribunal found three late or unpaid tax instalments and no timely "time to pay" arrangements covering the defaults, rejected the appellant's explanations (recession, bad debt, priority of wages, family difficulties) as amounting to a reasonable excuse, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the cancellation.

Mr Paul Mellor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 29 (TC) 30 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Mellor’s home was the business base of his electrical subcontracting trade for 2006–07 and therefore whether travel from home to sites could in principle be deductible. The tribunal found on the facts that his home was his business base, so section 34(1) did not preclude deductibility in principle. The tribunal did not decide which specific claimed travel costs were deductible; Mr Mellor bears the burden of proving which journeys were incurred wholly and exclusively for the trade.

The Phoenix Safe Company Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 27 (TC) 30 December 2010 This appeal challenged a VAT default surcharge for late payment and late filing for period 09/2009 after the company's finance director was summarily dismissed for fraud and a replacement failed to complete an online submission. The First-tier Tribunal held the company did not have a reasonable excuse under s.59(7) VATA 1994, concluding the directors retained responsibility and should have taken alternative steps (eg contacting HMRC or obtaining professional help). The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge of £885.11 upheld.

Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 25 (TC) 29 December 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC’s refusal (24 June 2008) to register Eastenders Cash and Carry Plc as a WOWGR registered owner, the refusal being based solely on unspent 1997 convictions of its two directors. The Tribunal found the decision-maker had not considered other relevant information (notably the appellant’s long compliance record and deferred duty account history), held the decision could not reasonably have been arrived at under s.16(4) FA 1994, allowed the appeal and directed HMRC to carry out a fresh review considering specified factors. The Tribunal declined to make a declaratory order and required a further review instead.

Geoffrey Allen v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 26 (TC) 29 December 2010 The appellant, Geoffrey Allen, sought review of historic tax years (1988–1992) outside the statutory six-year limit, claiming accounting and HMRC errors. The Tribunal held that none of the narrowly defined exceptional circumstances allowing remedial extension applied and that HMRC's 29 March 2010 letter was a restatement, not a fresh decision. The Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction and struck out the appeal.

Pete Matthews (1) Keith Sidwick (2) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 24 (TC) 29 December 2010 This case concerned two cruise-ship entertainers who appealed HMRC assessments arguing they were employees rather than self-employed. The Tribunal found each engagement was a separate contract for services and the entertainers were self-employed, rejected a legitimate-expectation claim based on HMRC correspondence, and upheld a discovery assessment against Mr Sidwick. The appeals were dismissed in principle.

Brian McAdam Plunbing and Heating v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 22 (TC) 22 December 2010 This appeal concerned a penalty for late VAT registration after Mr McAdam’s supplies exceeded the registration threshold; HMRC assessed unpaid VAT of £16,159 and a 15% penalty reduced in stages to £1,211. The Tribunal found McAdam bore the primary duty to monitor whether his supplies exceeded the threshold, rejected that reliance on his accountant excused him, accepted mitigation for co‑operation and personal circumstances but dismissed further mitigation, and upheld the £1,211 penalty. The appeal was dismissed.

Mr C V Carden & Mrs J Carden t/a Platinum World Travel v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 23 (TC) 22 December 2010 This appeal concerned Mr and Mrs Carden's failure to comply with Schedule 36 information notices requiring certified lists of bank accounts and bank statements in connection with an HMRC enquiry into the partnership return to 5 April 2007. The First-tier Tribunal found the requested documents were reasonably required to resolve discrepancies, rejected the appellants' asserted excuses (including lack of funds and reliance on others), and dismissed the appeal, upholding £300 penalties against each appellant.

David Trather (1) Vaughan Goode (2)Mangogrove Limited-(Third Party) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 21 (TC) 21 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether a planning condition that the apartments be "used for holiday purposes only and shall not be used for permanent residential accommodation" prevented their use as the grantee's principal private residence for the purposes of Note (13) to Item 1 of Group 5, Schedule 8 VAT Act 1994. The Tribunal held that the restriction does prevent use as a principal private residence and therefore the first grant of a major interest was not zero-rated but standard-rated. The appellants' appeals were dismissed.

FMX Food Merchants Import Export Co Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 20 (TC) 21 December 2010 FMX appealed a post‑clearance demand for anti‑dumping duty on nine garlic consignments declared as Cambodian but found to be Chinese; OLAF found forged Cambodian certificates and transhipment from China. The Tribunal held the garlic was Chinese, FMX had not acted in good faith or exercised due care, and there was no relevant error by the Cambodian issuing authority; FMX's Article 239 remission claim also failed. The appeal was dismissed and costs awarded to HMRC (with a small costs exception relating to a late amendment).

Parveen Azam v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 18 (TC) 20 December 2010 Mrs Parveen Azam claimed deduction of £30,995 spent on about 45 counselling/training sessions, contending the cost was wholly and exclusively for her beauty salon trade. The tribunal found the sessions were attended both to address business personnel issues and to enhance her own personal wellbeing, so the expenditure had a non‑trade purpose as well as a trade purpose. Because the expense was not incurred exclusively for the trade, it was not deductible and the appeal was dismissed.

Paul Atkinson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 32 (TC) 20 December 2010 This appeal concerned surcharges imposed on Mr Atkinson for unpaid 2008 income tax and whether his illness, including alcoholism and stress, amounted to a "reasonable excuse" for the defaults. The First-tier Tribunal accepted the credible oral evidence of Mr Atkinson's brother and found Mr Atkinson was incapacitated throughout the relevant period, notwithstanding limited formal medical documentation. The tribunal therefore allowed the appeal and set the surcharges aside. The tribunal also decided no adjournment to obtain further medical evidence was required.

Paul Wright v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 14 (TC) 20 December 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of the appellant's CIS gross payment status after he failed to pay a 31 January 2009 balancing payment and first payment on account until June–July 2009. The Tribunal found he had no reasonable excuse for the lateness—rejecting that reliance on a partner's instructions or cash-flow difficulties amounted to a reasonable excuse—and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC's decision.

Angela Ryan-Munden v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 12 (TC) 16 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether a Mercedes owned by Securidoor (NE) Ltd was a pool car under s167 ITEPA 2003 or was available for private use so as to give rise to taxable car and fuel benefits. The Tribunal rejected later-produced diaries and found Mr Munden not credible, concluding the car was ordinarily used by Mrs Ryan‑Munden to the exclusion of others. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld HMRC’s car and fuel benefit charges.

Clear Plc v Director of Border Revenue [2011] UKFTT 11 (TC) 16 December 2010 Clear Plc appealed HMRC's re-review decision refusing restoration of 40.8kg of platinum sponge seized on import. The Tribunal held that under s.14(5) FA 1994 a reviewing officer may consider all matters relevant to the re-review issue (here ownership), not just newly submitted documents, and that HMRC's application of its restoration policy was reasonable on the facts. The Tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to justify restoration and dismissed the appeal.

Maliha Group Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 10 (TC) 16 December 2010 Maliha Group Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to allow input VAT for May–Sept 2007 in respect of purchases from three suppliers. The Tribunal found supplies from two suppliers (Soundmania and RTV) did not take place and disallowed £4,179.75, but held that supplies from BKW did occur and allowed £13,755.50 input tax; it also found HMRC had not validly issued a Regulation 29(2) direction after the event. The appeal was allowed in part and the appellant was entitled to a net repayment.

(1)Reed Employment Plc (2)Reed Employment Staffing Services Limited (3)Reed Health Limited (4)Reed Learning Plc (5)Reed Learning Staffing Services Limited (6)Reed Managed Services Limited (7)Reed Payroll Management Limited (8)Reed Personnel Services Limited (9)Reed Staffing Services Limited (10)RPS Payroll Management Limited (11)RPS Staffing Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 596 (TC) 15 December 2010 This case concerns case management of a tax appeal in the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) that is closely linked to a judicial review (JR) in the Upper Tribunal (UT) about HMRC's treatment of certain payroll/salary-sacrifice arrangements and related legitimate expectation issues. The tribunal split on procedure, but by casting vote ordered the FTT appeal to be heard first (13 days from 14 March 2011), stayed the JR pending that outcome, and made limited disclosure and timetabling directions. Disclosure was ordered to be limited to HMRC Head Office/technical staff documents up to end-February 2007; broader local-office searches were held disproportionate. Some proposed amendments to the JR were refused; others allowed.

D P Owens t/a Buses Rhiwlas v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 645 (TC) 15 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether a small bus operator took "reasonable care" under regulation 72 for PAYE underdeductions in tax years 2004-05 to 2006-07. The tribunal found lack of reasonable care for 2004-05 and dismissed the appeal for that year (with interest payable) but allowed the appeal for 2005-06 and 2006-07, concluding the employer had acted reasonably in those later years given the factual circumstances and HMRC’s lack of contact. The appellant acted in good faith throughout.

Mubarak Ali Tariq v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 8 (TC) 15 December 2010 This appeal concerned surcharges of £944.04 for undisclosed rental income 2002–2008; the appellant relied on ill health, poor accountant advice and lack of knowledge as a "reasonable excuse" for late disclosure and payment. The Tribunal rejected those defences, holding the surcharges were correctly calculated and recoverable, and dismissed the appeal.

Pars Technology Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 9 (TC) 15 December 2010 This case concerned HMRC's refusal to repay input VAT claimed by Pars Technology on 59 invoices in April–May 2006, HMRC alleging the purchases formed part of MTIC fraud chains. The Tribunal found the majority of chains traced to alleged defaulters, that the chains were organised for fraud, and that Pars (through its director and officers) knew or ought to have known of the connection to fraudulent VAT evasion. Pars' appeal was dismissed and HMRC were awarded costs.

The Team Brand Communication Consultants Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 7 (TC) 15 December 2010 The Team Brand appealed a VAT default surcharge assessed after its 04/10 return and payment were received two days late. The Tribunal found the company's finance director was credibly preoccupied and anxious about an active redundancy process, and that this anxiety amounted to a "reasonable excuse" under VATA s.59(7). The appeal was allowed and the surcharge was not payable; the Tribunal did not decide the separate proportionality challenge.

Dom Buckley IRS Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 5 (TC) 14 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether the sale of a Ford Focus rally car by Dom Buckley IRS Ltd (DBL) to Vitoracing qualified as an intra‑Community supply zero‑rated for VAT. The Tribunal found on the evidence (agreement, provision of Vitoracing's Spanish VAT number, dispatch to Spain, use of the car in Spanish rallies and post‑sale support) that the car was supplied to a taxable person in Spain and the zero‑rating conditions were met, so DBL's appeal was allowed. The Tribunal rejected HMRC's challenge based on payment and invoicing irregularities, concluding those did not defeat entitlement to zero‑rate relief.

John Martin v Director of Border Revenue [2011] UKFTT 4 (TC) 14 December 2010 The First-tier Tribunal upheld the Director of Border Revenue's decision refusing to restore a seized Volvo and excise goods (15 kg hand-rolling tobacco, 1,200 cigarettes, 2,050 cigars) seized on 5 December 2009. The Tribunal found the goods were likely held for commercial/profit purposes (supported by quantity, receipts, inconsistent accounts and prior seizure) and that the appellant had not shown exceptional hardship from losing the car. It also held it would be an abuse of process to relitigate seizure legality or "own use" where the appellant had declined condemnation proceedings. The review officer's decision was held to be one she could reasonably have reached.

Mobile Motoring Maintenance Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 6 (TC) 14 December 2010 This appeal concerned a taxpayer’s claim for repayment of output VAT following a £2,104 assessment issued 13 February 2006; the taxpayer sought a refund of £1,242.87 but did not pursue a repayment request until 27 March 2009. The tribunal held that the three-year statutory time limit in s.80(4) VATA runs from the end of the prescribed accounting period in which the assessment was made (ended 28 February 2006), so the claim was out of time by a small margin. The tribunal also held it had no jurisdiction to extend or vary the statutory time limits or to entertain complaints about HMRC delay; the appeal was dismissed.

Timar (Road Planning) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 640 (TC) 13 December 2010 Timar (Road Planning) Ltd appealed penalties totalling £7,800 for allegedly late submission of CIS monthly returns for periods December 2007 to March 2008. The Tribunal found HMRC received no returns in the required form by the due dates, that photocopies did not satisfy the statutory requirement for returns “in a form provided or approved by HMRC,” and that the appellant failed to prove timely posting. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties upheld.

Hawkeye Communications Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 636 (TC) 10 December 2010 Hawkeye Communications appealed an HMRC decision; the appeal began before the Tribunal Rules 2009 came into force on 1 April 2009. HMRC applied under para 7(3) of the Transitional Order to have the pre-2009 costs-shifting rule 29 (1986 Rules) apply instead of rule 10 (2009 Rules). The tribunal refused HMRC's application, holding that fairness and the parties' reasonable post-1 April-2009 expectations required the 2009 costs regime (rule 10) to govern. HMRC's delay and the fact that categorisation under rule 23 cannot be applied to notices delivered before 1 April 2009 were material to the decision.

Hywell Davies v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 13 (TC) 10 December 2010 Hywell Davies appealed HMRC's contributions decision claiming missing National Insurance contributions (Class 1 and Class 2) to increase his state pension entitlement. The Tribunal found Mr Davies had consented to re-allocation of some Class 2 payments to his wife and had cancelled his Class 2 direct debit around 1979–80, and there was insufficient evidence that Class 1 contributions had been paid for 1991–92 to 1994–95. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's varied decision (entitling Mr Davies to 87% of the pension) was upheld.

James Van Der Velde v Director of Border Revenue [2010] UKFTT 639 (TC) 10 December 2010 This appeal concerned the Director of Border Revenue’s refusal to restore a BMW seized after 25 kg of hand‑rolling tobacco was found in it on return from Belgium. The tribunal found the quantity and surrounding circumstances indicated the tobacco was held for a commercial purpose (including transfers "for money or money's worth") and that the review officer’s refusal to restore the vehicle was one he could reasonably have reached. The tribunal upheld non‑restoration as not disproportionate to the public interest in securing tax payment.

La Mancha Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 638 (TC) 10 December 2010 La Mancha Limited appealed a £500 penalty for late filing its 2008–09 Employers' Annual Return. The Tribunal found the Taxes Management Act monthly penalty regime produced the £500 figure given the filing date and that neither the accountants' one‑off software error nor HMRC's failure to send reminders amounted to a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty confirmed.

Tekniko Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 637 (TC) 10 December 2010 Tekniko Limited appealed a £625.88 VAT default surcharge for the 02/09 period, arguing cashflow problems and failures by a previous accountant amounted to a "reasonable excuse." The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse within the statutory/technical meaning, rejected reliance on a third party and insufficiency of funds in the circumstances, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the surcharge.

John Price v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 634 (TC) 9 December 2010 This appeal concerned a DIY housebuilder's claim for repayment of £774 VAT under s.35 VATA for various invoices arising in construction. The First-tier Tribunal held VAT was refundable only for goods that were VAT‑chargeable building materials actually incorporated in the dwelling; roller blinds met that test and £61.47 was refunded. The Tribunal dismissed claims for plastering, boiler commissioning and site/plant hire because those supplies were either services (not goods) or should have been zero‑rated (not VAT‑chargeable), so no refund under the DIY scheme. The remainder of the claim (£712.53) was refused.

Tracey Mears v United Kingdom Border Agency [2010] UKFTT 635 (TC) 9 December 2010 This appeal concerned seizure of tobacco and a Ford Focus registered to Mrs Mears; the goods and vehicle had been condemned in magistrates' court after the appellants' solicitors ceased to act. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to re-open the prior "own use" finding as to the tobacco (to do so would be an abuse of process) and could only review whether the UK Border Agency's refusal to restore the vehicle was a decision it could reasonably have reached. Applying that limited test, the tribunal found no basis to order restoration or further disclosure and dismissed the appeal.

Martin Samuel v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 633 (TC) 8 December 2010 This tribunal considered a VAT refund claim where the appellant rebuilt most of a bungalow as a much larger house but planning consent had required retention of two adjoining walls. The panel found the retention requirement did qualify as a "condition or requirement of statutory planning consent" but concluded the site did not meet Note 18(b)'s separate "corner site" requirement. Because the "corner site" test failed, the VAT refund claim was dismissed. The tribunal invited HMRC to consider exercising discretion in the case.

Michael Cohen v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 631 (TC) 8 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether ten supplies claimed as zero-rated exports had the required documentary proof under Notice 703, reg.129 VAT Regulations 1995 and s.30(6) VATA. The Tribunal found two invoices (1118 and 1177) met the proof requirements and were zero-rated, reduced the assessment accordingly, but upheld HMRC’s assessments for the other eight supplies for lack of adequate evidence. Interest was to be recalculated after reduction.

Traderco Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 632 (TC) 8 December 2010 Traderco appealed VAT assessments arguing supplies were zero-rated exports but HMRC found insufficient proof of export under Notice 703 and Regulation 129. The Tribunal examined successive and amended shipment documents, found discrepancies and that required commercial evidence (including links between invoiced goods and export documents) was not obtained within Notice 703 time limits. The Tribunal held HMRC reasonably rejected the evidence and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessments.

Herts Photographic Bureau Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 629 (TC) 7 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether Herts Photographic Bureau Ltd was a close investment‑holding company for the accounting period to 31 May 2008 under ICTA section 13(2)(b) after it sold its sole investment property in June 2007 and held the proceeds on deposit. The First‑tier Tribunal accepted the sole director’s evidence that the company intended throughout the period to reinvest in residential rental property once the market stabilised, and on that basis allowed the appeal.

Prince Erediauwa v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 630 (TC) 7 December 2010 The Tribunal considered HMRC discovery assessments charging the Appellant car and fuel benefits for 2005/06 and 2006/07 after an employer compliance review. It held the vehicles were not pool cars and confirmed the discovery assessments of £5,810.40 (2005/06) and £9,156 (2006/07) calculated using statutory list price. The Tribunal criticised HMRC’s County Court enforcement (pursued while the liability was under appeal and for an incorrect aggregated sum) and noted the Appellant’s unproven claim of monthly payments.

Protec International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 628 (TC) 2 December 2010 Protec International paid large annual sponsorship sums to McKinstry Motorsports from 2002–2005 and claimed the payments as trade expenses. The Tribunal found Protec failed to prove the payments were made wholly and exclusively for the company’s trade, noting absence of the sole director’s evidence, lack of written agreements and corroborating analysis, and misleading/piecemeal responses to HMRC. The Tribunal concluded there was a duality of purpose (including personal benefit to the director), dismissed the appeal and upheld HMRC’s assessments.

Auto Poz Trans v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 3 (TC) 1 December 2010 This case concerns HMRC's seizure of 22,860 litres of beer at Dover and its subsequent refusal to restore the goods to the importer. The Tribunal upheld HMRC's decision, finding the accompanying customs/excise documents were duplicated/reused with non‑original signatures, the stated REDS agent had ceased trading and the consignee address did not exist, and that refusal to restore was reasonable and proportionate. The appeal was dismissed and the goods remained forfeited.

Checkprice (UK) Limited (in administration) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 623 (TC) 1 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether 119 duty-suspended lorry loads despatched by Checkprice to MTM in Calais actually arrived, which would extinguish the Appellant’s liability for Excise Duty and VAT. The Tribunal, on balance of probabilities, found the Appellant failed to prove delivery, accepted contemporaneous Eurotunnel scan and other evidence supporting HMRC’s "borrowed loads" outward‑diversion theory, and dismissed the appeal. HMRC was awarded costs subject to a 56‑day opportunity for representations.

East India Devonshire Sports and Public Schools Club Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 627 (TC) 1 December 2010 The tribunal considered an appeal against a £2,791.66 default surcharge for late VAT (period 1 Jan–31 Mar 2009). It allowed the late notice of appeal to be entertained but found the appellant had no reasonable excuse for the late payment and dismissed the substantive appeal, upholding the surcharge. The tribunal also held the statutory surcharge regime affords no discretion to mitigate the prescribed rate.

Everest Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 621 (TC) 1 December 2010 Everest paid customers a 10% "cashback" contingent on taking finance and treated that payment as a retrospective discount reducing the VATable price of its home‑improvement supplies; HMRC assessed additional VAT. The First-tier Tribunal held the cashback was objectively a reduction of the taxable consideration for Everest’s supply and allowed the appeal, calculating VAT on the reduced amount. The tribunal refused to refer EU questions to the CJEU and deferred a costs order while applying the 1986 costs rule to the current proceedings.

J T Dove Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 16 (TC) 1 December 2010 J T Dove Ltd paid £3m to an employee benefit trust to enable it to acquire company shares and claimed a trading deduction. The Tribunal held the payment was made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the company's trade and was revenue in nature, but that it constituted a "potential emolument" within s.43(11) Finance Act 1989 so the deduction was disallowed. The appeal was dismissed.

Mithras (Wine Bars) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 622 (TC) 1 December 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mithras (Wine Bars) Ltd had rebutted HMRC's assessments of VAT by relying on till records. On remittal the First-tier Tribunal rejected the company's 37 days of new/reprogrammed till data as unreliable (late introduction and glitches) and found the appellant had not provided adequate self‑invigilation evidence to displace HMRC's figures. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's assessed amounts were upheld.

Xentric Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 620 (TC) 1 December 2010 Xentric Limited appealed HMRC’s refusal to repay input VAT on 29 CPU purchases in April–May 2006. The First-tier Tribunal found the transactions were connected to VAT fraud and that Xentric, through its director Mr Olin, had actual knowledge of that connection. Xentric’s compliance with Notice 726-style checks and its enquiries were held inadequate, the appeals were dismissed, and costs were ordered against Xentric.

A Divorcee v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 612 (TC) 30 November 2010 This appeal challenged a 5% TMA default surcharge imposed for non-payment of a balancing tax due 31 January 2009. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to review HMRC’s mitigation discretion under s.11 TMA and found the appellant did not have a "reasonable excuse" during the 28‑day default period; the appeal against the surcharge was dismissed. The tribunal concluded that the appellant’s prioritisation of legal and building costs and failure to seek borrowing were not, on balance, reasonable.

Ann Godfrey v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 611 (TC) 30 November 2010 This appeal concerned the capital gains tax treatment of a transfer of a half-share in 169 Conway Road from Mr Godfrey to the Appellant and whether an HMRC Self Assessment Statement amounted to a closure notice; the Tribunal found the Appellant’s return understated her gain and dismissed her appeals. The Tribunal held that spouse-transfer provisions in the TCGA treat the transferee as taking the transferor’s base cost (so the Appellant’s base cost derived from Mr Godfrey’s probate base cost), that the 28 Sep 2008 Statement was not a closure notice under s.28A TMA, and that the 5% surcharge under s.59C TMA was properly imposed without a reasonable excuse.

David Dean t/a The George & Dragon v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 613 (TC) 30 November 2010 This appeal concerned a VAT assessment for 28 June 2007–31 August 2008 against David Dean t/a The George & Dragon after HMRC, finding the business records rudimentary and unreliable, recalculated input tax and made a "best of judgment" assessment fixing VAT due at £3,438. The appellant produced various documents and explanations (including pint-for-pint sheets, claims of staff theft and gambling winnings) but the tribunal found them insufficiently reliable to rebut HMRC's assessment. The tribunal accepted HMRC's recalculated figures, dismissed the appeal and ordered the appellant to pay HMRC's costs for a missed hearing on 10 August 2010.

Everest Eze v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 610 (TC) 30 November 2010 This appeal concerned Mr Eze's claims for employment-related deductions in his 2006 and 2007 UK tax returns and HMRC penalties for negligent returns. The tribunal found the taxpayer's evidence thin, allowed only £180 of deductible expenses for each year (including a newly allowed £30 travel allowance per year and an accepted £150 PPE allowance), rejected the remainder of the claims, and upheld a reduced negligence penalty (which HMRC had already largely mitigated).

Jarvis Ellis t/a Ellis Construction v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 614 (TC) 30 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether Jarvis Ellis (trading as Ellis Construction) exceeded the VAT registration threshold such that he should have been registered from 1 February 2008 to 31 January 2009, and the correctness of HMRC’s VAT assessment and a belated notification penalty. The Tribunal found, on the appellant’s trading figures, that a rolling turnover exceeded the threshold at 31 December 2007 and that the effective registration date was 1 February 2008 to 31 January 2009. The VAT assessment, corrected by agreement to the 7.5% flat rate, was confirmed at £5,728.95, and the appeal against the belated notification penalty was allowed by consent.

John Francis O'Mullane v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 615 (TC) 30 November 2010 This case concerns Mr O'Mullane's claim for repayment of a £500 restoration payment after HMRC found rebated (red) diesel in his vehicle; he said he had accidentally filled the car from a jerry can he had brought from France. The Tribunal rejected his account as implausible, held that he would have checked the jerry can if unaware it contained diesel, found the reviewer acted reasonably, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the £500 restoration requirement.

Mohammed Zafar v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 619 (TC) 30 November 2010 This case concerns Mr Zafar’s application for permission to appeal out of time against an HMRC closure notice assessing £65,980 CGT on a deemed disposal of 5,000 Kozee shares. The Tribunal found HMRC’s correspondence had been received, Mr Zafar (and his trustee) gave no adequate explanation for the delay, and there was insufficient timely evidence to rebut HMRC’s view of disposal and liability. Permission to appeal out of time was refused and the closure/assessment was treated as final.

Park Property World Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 617 (TC) 30 November 2010 Park Property World Ltd appealed out of time against HMRC corporation tax assessments for years ended 31 March 2005 and 2006, arguing delays were caused by the property market collapse, bank funding problems and family-related difficulties in producing documents. The Tribunal held the company did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to supply information during the enquiry or for the delay in filing the appeal, and refused permission to admit the out-of-time appeal, so the assessments stand.

Red Apple Cleaning Management Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 618 (TC) 30 November 2010 This case concerns whether cleaners supplied to clients by Red Apple Cleaning Management Ltd were employees or self‑employed. The Tribunal, proceeding in the company's absence, found on the evidence of witness testimony, pay records and company practices that the cleaners were engaged under contracts of service and dismissed the company's appeal, upholding HMRC's PAYE/Regulation 80 determinations for 2003/04–2008/09. The Tribunal held there was mutuality of obligation, significant company control, lack of genuine substitution and absence of financial risk for the workers. The company failed to discharge the onus of proof and was informed of its right to seek permission to appeal.

Rod Littley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 616 (TC) 30 November 2010 This case concerns a s.61 VAT penalty of £92,852.25 imposed on Mr Rod Littley as sole director of Followit Ltd for failure to file VAT returns for periods 04/05–07/08. The tribunal found that Mr Littley was dishonest in accepting centrally issued assessments that were plainly inadequate given the company’s turnover and VAT received, dismissed his mitigation arguments (reliance on bookkeepers, inability to pay) and confirmed the penalty (reduced to 50% for cooperation).

Afshin Safa Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 609 (TC) 25 November 2010 This appeal concerned two late company tax returns received by HMRC on 17 December 2009 and penalties of £200 for each return. The appellant relied on an agent and alleged HMRC misled him and collected part-payment improperly; HMRC produced records showing returns were incomplete and rejected earlier. The Tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the returns were not filed within the statutory periods, that HMRC did not act unlawfully or mislead the appellant, and dismissed the appeals, confirming total penalties of £400.

Joiner Cummings v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 606 (TC) 25 November 2010 This case concerned whether the appellant’s work in finding a buyer for land that had been transferred into a Jersey property unit trust, and in securing a purchaser for the trust units, amounted to an exempt intermediary financial service under Item 5 of Group 5 of Schedule 9 VATA or to a taxable estate agency service. The Tribunal found the units were within Item 6(e) (units/securities conferring rights under a trust participating in income/capital from property) and that the appellant acted as an intermediary in relation to the transfer of those units. The appellant’s services were therefore an exempt intermediary supply and the appeal was allowed.

Mr Anthony Marshall v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 608 (TC) 25 November 2010 Mr Marshall appealed HMRC’s refusal to treat late Class 2 National Insurance contributions (1 July 1984–5 April 2002) as paid in time under regulation 6(1). The Tribunal found he was aware of NI obligations and had a mistaken belief that self-assessment/Class 4 payments notified HMRC of his self-employment, but that this mistake arose from a failure to exercise due care. The appeal was dismissed and the late Class 2 payments will be treated as not paid for contributory benefit purposes, subject to separate Class 3 options after 6 April 2009.

Williams Grand Prix Engineering Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 607 (TC) 25 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether payments by Toyota to Williams under a Driver Development Agreement were for sporting services (place of supply where performed) or advertising services (place of supply where recipient belongs). The Tribunal, applying an economic-reality approach and focusing on the contractual mechanism and fee calculation tied to driver experience/kilometres/status, found the predominant supply was sporting services. The appeal was dismissed.

Arash Pouladdej v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 592 (TC) 24 November 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC’s best‑judgment VAT assessment against a takeaway operator for periods 07/04–04/07 (excluding 07/05) and related mis‑declaration penalties. The First‑tier Tribunal found the appellant’s records and oral evidence unreliable and accepted HMRC’s use of packaging purchase quantities and a reasonable average purchase value to derive notional takings, but reduced the original assessment and penalties to reflect appropriate adjustments. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, setting the assessed unpaid VAT at £13,661.41 and mis‑declaration penalties at £756.

G Comms Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 605 (TC) 24 November 2010 G Comms claimed c.£2.29m input VAT on 18 export transactions for 04/06; HMRC refused repayment, tracing each chain to defaulting fraudulent traders and bank evidence showing circular same‑day payment flows. The tribunal found the 18 Deals formed part of an orchestrated VAT fraud, that G Comms' due diligence was superficial and often merely complied with Notice 726, and that a reasonably competent person in G Comms' position ought to have known of the connection to fraud. The appeal was dismissed and repayment refused.

Hi Tech Paints Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 591 (TC) 24 November 2010 Hi Tech Paints appealed a £100 penalty for late submission of a CIS return received by HMRC on 23 March 2010 for the period ended 5 March 2010, claiming postage on or before the due date and relying on a company secretary’s letter and a photocopied envelope. The Tribunal found the appellant’s evidence inconsistent and lacking independent corroboration, and concluded postage was likely insufficient despite prior HMRC advice to retain postage evidence. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty confirmed.

Mr Hitesh Desai v Director of Border Revenue [2010] UKFTT 595 (TC) 24 November 2010 This appeal concerned the Director of Border Revenue's refusal to restore Mr Desai's car after two tobacco importations; the tribunal found both imports were commercial and for profit and that Mr Desai knowingly assisted the second importation by using his vehicle. The tribunal upheld Mrs Hodge's decision as one a reasonable decision-maker could make and dismissed the appeal.

Mr Matthew Buckingham v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 593 (TC) 24 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Matthew Buckingham was a contractor under the Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) or was acting as an agent/supervisor for his father (or his father's company) in supervising refurbishment of investment properties. The First-tier Tribunal found he was acting under his father's instructions as a supervisor/agent, paid a fixed weekly sum and not carrying on an independent construction business, and therefore was not subject to CIS deduction obligations. The Regulation 13 determination was dismissed and the appeal allowed.

PVC Fascia Company v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 17 (TC) 24 November 2010 PVC Fascia Company, a partnership of two brothers carrying on fascia-fitting work, appealed HMRC Regulation 13 CIS determinations for 2003–04 to 2006–07. HMRC conceded (under Regulation 9) that £10,676.88 of the original determinations should not be collected from the contractor, and the Tribunal reduced the determinations by that amount; the partnership produced no evidence to rebut the remaining determinations, so liability for £8,455.32 remains. The appeal was therefore allowed in part and dismissed in part.

Rehncy Shaheen and Co v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 590 (TC) 24 November 2010 This appeal concerned an HMRC s.73 VAT assessment for £15,051 for the periods Dec 2000–Dec 2002, based on bank reconciliations and reduced from an earlier higher figure after representations. The Tribunal, proceeding in the appellants’ absence, found there was sufficient material for the Commissioners to form a “best of judgement” and dismissed the appeal, confirming the £15,051 liability. The decision records the appellants’ right to apply to set the decision aside or to seek permission to appeal.

ITV Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 586 (TC) 23 November 2010 This Tribunal considered whether payments by ITV to entertainers from 6 April 2003 fell within the statutory definition of "salary" in paragraph 5A(B) of the Categorisation Regulations, thereby attracting secondary Class 1 national insurance contributions. It held that an entertainer's status for NIC purposes is determined prospectively by reference to the contract at its inception, not by each payment as made. Applying the four cumulative conditions in paragraph 5A(B), the Tribunal found that Bespoke, ITV/Equity, PACT/Equity, most stunt and walk-on agreements and similar forms met the definition of "salary" and thus fell within Class 1, whereas All Rights agreements did not (with memo-fee arrangements treated subject to their specific terms). No costs were awarded.

Mr Gurmail Sahota and Mrs Rani Sahota v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 587 (TC) 23 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether the Sahotas were entitled to Business Asset Taper Relief in respect of a public house with living accommodation and a separate accommodation property, and whether the Tribunal could mitigate HMRC's amended self-assessments. The appellants conceded the statutory interpretation that their letting activity did not amount to a trade and thus did not qualify for the relief. The Tribunal found no power to mitigate the tax, no pleaded or evidenced hardship, and dismissed the appeals.

Mr Stuart Hughes v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 589 (TC) 23 November 2010 This case concerns whether a 11 August 2006 HMRC letter of offer, accepted by Mr Hughes, settled all his tax liabilities including Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) liabilities. The Tribunal held the settlement related only to the Income Tax and Class 4 NICs listed in the attached statement/table and did not extinguish CIS liabilities; HMRC's later Regulation 13 determinations and penalties were upheld and the appellant's double‑taxation claim failed. The appeal was dismissed.

P A Maloney trading as Advanced Property Serviced v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 588 (TC) 23 November 2010 This case concerns Mr Maloney's appeal against HMRC assessments based mainly on inferences from Halifax bank statements. The Tribunal refused further postponement after repeated delay, proceeded in his absence under its rules, and held HMRC's inferences were reasonable in the absence of contrary evidence, dismissing the appeal (the jeopardy assessment was withdrawn). Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was noted.

S Morris Groundwork Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 585 (TC) 18 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether S Morris Groundwork Ltd satisfied the statutory compliance test for gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme after late PAYE, late contractor returns and a late corporation tax payment. The Tribunal found the late CT payment alone did not automatically constitute a reasonable excuse, but having regard to the company's explanation and the disproportionate consequences of losing gross status (risk to a major contract and many jobs) the company nevertheless had a reasonable excuse and the appeal was allowed.

A 1 Lofts Ltd A 1 Lofts Conversions Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 581 (TC) 17 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether the written Agreement between A1 Lofts and a client was genuinely an agency contract or an obligation by A1 to supply a completed loft conversion. The Tribunal, on reconsideration after remittal, found the Agreement inconsistent with agency when read with pre-contractual materials and conduct and concluded A1 had undertaken to supply the completed conversion. The appeal was dismissed.

Dr K M Manzur v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 580 (TC) 17 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether Dr Manzur’s c.240–300 share purchases and sales in 2006–07 and 2007–08 amounted to a trade or were management of an investment portfolio. The Tribunal concluded the transactions were investment/portfolio management, not trading, and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC’s adjustments (£2,501.76 for 2006–07 and £3,712.58 for 2007–08).

Ms Janelle Howell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 584 (TC) 17 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether a £14,000 payment on the appellant's redundancy was a taxable contractual payment in lieu of notice (PILON) or tax-free compensation for breach of contract. The tribunal found the appellant had an express contractual right to notice and that the contract/handbook permitted payment in lieu, the sum matched four months' salary, and there was no evidence of a negotiated settlement. The payment was therefore a PILON and taxable, so the appeal was dismissed.

Roy Thomason(1) Richard Godwin(2) Andrew Markham(3) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 579 (TC) 17 November 2010 The three appellants were employees of Oldco who became directors/shareholders of Newco; Newco bought Oldco’s trade on 25 Oct 2004 and later issued further shares on 25 Oct 2005 for which the appellants claimed EIS relief. HMRC denied relief under s 291A(5)(b)(ii) arguing the appellants had been “involved in carrying on” the same trade. The Tribunal held the relevant statutory test is to be applied at the time of the earlier share issue (15 Oct 2004), when Newco had not yet carried on the trade, so the condition was not breached and the appeal was allowed.

The Athenaeum Club v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 583 (TC) 17 November 2010 The Athenaeum Club appealed a £4,243 Schedule 24 penalty imposed for an inaccuracy in its VAT return after it reclaimed input tax on a water statement that later showed no VAT. The Tribunal found the club's manager had taken reasonable care, having relied on prior HMRC advice, supplier communications and an HMRC inspector who described the position as a "grey area", and therefore cancelled the penalty.

D O Needham v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 571 (TC) 16 November 2010 The appellant, a PAYE construction worker who declared small self‑employment income and large expenses for 2001/02–2005/06, could not produce contemporaneous business records. HMRC issued closure amendments largely disallowing the claimed expenses; the First-tier Tribunal found the appellant had not discharged the burden of proof and upheld the review figures and closure amendments, dismissing the appeal.

Giles Bushell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 577 (TC) 16 November 2010 This appeal challenged 134 CIS nil-return penalties (£20,300) for months when Mr Bushell largely had no subcontractors and had relied on agents and HMRC telephone advice. The tribunal held that Regulation 4 requires some continuity of making payments before periodic nil returns are required, that routine reliance on an agent is not automatically a reasonable excuse, and that HMRC's April 2008 telephone advice did constitute a reasonable excuse from that date to 3 March 2009 for certain failures. The tribunal allowed parts of the appeal, reducing or discharging specific monthly penalties (notably Periods 7–9) and upheld a £100 penalty for Dec 2008, and permitted further proportionality submissions.

Mollan & Co Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 578 (TC) 16 November 2010 This appeal concerned a VAT penalty imposed on Mollan & Co for failing to declare output tax on a property when de-registering for VAT. The First-tier Tribunal found the omission was a careless error, not an unprompted disclosure, and upheld a penalty of £4,500 (15% of the assessed potential lost revenue of £30,000). The appeal was dismissed.

Steve Jordan Fencing v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 570 (TC) 16 November 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of Steve Jordan Fencing's CIS gross payment status for alleged late tax payments due 31 January 2009 and 31 July 2008. The tribunal found the January 2009 payments were late, that the appellant failed to prove a reasonable excuse (his claim of having sent a cheque on 29 January was unsupported), and dismissed the appeal in relation to those defaults; no finding was made on the July 2008 payment.

Thomas Arthur Howes v UK Border Agency [2010] UKFTT 572 (TC) 16 November 2010 Mr Thomas Howes appealed the UK Border Agency's refusal to return seized tobacco and cigarettes, claiming they were for his own use. The First-tier Tribunal held that because Mr Howes withdrew Magistrates' Court condemnation proceedings after being properly warned of the consequences, he had no reasonable excuse and therefore could not give evidence before the Tribunal that the goods were for his own use. The Tribunal also found that the reviewing officer's amendment of the review letter without proper disclosure undermined the reasonableness of the original decision and ordered a fresh review by a different officer.

Chidi Anthony Oti-Obihara v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 568 (TC) 15 November 2010 The appellant received a £500,000 compromise payment after leaving Morgan Stanley; the tribunal had to decide how much was "received in connection with" termination for income tax purposes. It apportioned £165,000 of the settlement to financial loss connected to termination (£30,000 exempt), so £135,000 was taxable as an employment termination payment and £335,000 was not taxable. The appellant's self‑assessment is to be amended and steps taken to recover any over‑deducted tax.

Terrence William Fraser v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 569 (TC) 15 November 2010 This appeal concerned surcharges for late payment of income tax for 1999/2000 and whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for paying the balancing tax more than six months late. The Tribunal found the appellant had no reasonable excuse at any time during the default period and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also held that, even if reliance on incorrect telephone information from HMRC could arguably amount to a reasonable excuse, that excuse would have ended by April 2001 when HMRC sent a statement showing the correct balance.

Michael John Thomas v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 567 (TC) 12 November 2010 This appeal concerned CIS-based tax assessments for 2003/04 and 2004/05 raised against Mr Michael John Thomas, who claimed that his manager, Mr Russell, had misappropriated all business income. The First-tier Tribunal found Mr Thomas bore the onus of showing on the balance of probabilities that he derived no income in those years and that the late, uncorroborated letter from Mr Russell did not suffice. The tribunal accepted the HMRC reviewer’s apportionment of income on the available evidence and dismissed the appeal, upholding the revised assessments.

Simon Watson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 565 (TC) 12 November 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC's refusal to restore about 8.5 kg of rolling tobacco seized at Ramsgate on 27 September 2008. The Tribunal found the review officer's decision reasonable, accepting that quantities exceeded REDS guideline levels and that travel frequency, inconsistent accounts, implausible consumption evidence and cash payment supported an inference of commercial importation. The appeal was dismissed and the goods were not restored; HMRC's costs application was refused.

Stephen Joyce Andrew Wingfield v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 12 November 2010 This case concerned whether two taxpayers acquired shares by subscription (issued by the company) or by purchase from an existing holder for the purpose of claiming income tax relief as subscribers. The tribunal found the taxpayers had not proved subscription and that the evidence more likely showed they bought existing shares, so their appeals were dismissed. The company later collapsed and the shares became valueless; parties may seek permission to appeal.

Malcolm Springthorpe v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 582 (TC) 11 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether 15 Derby Road was the appellant's only or main residence from November 1999 to September 2000 for Principal Private Residence (PPR) relief. The Tribunal found the appellant's occupation during renovation did not meet the qualitative test of residence (permanence, continuity or expectation of continuity) and that he had not discharged the burden of proof. HMRC's closure notice denying PPR and lettings relief was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Peter Gamble v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 564 (TC) 11 November 2010 Mr Gamble, employed part‑year in 2005–06 and working from home and a London property in which he had a 40% interest, claimed £17,271.37 of employment‑related deductions. The Tribunal held most claims were not deductible because they put him in a position to perform duties (preparatory) rather than being incurred in the actual performance of duties, and that London room rent was not deductible where he effectively paid himself. The Tribunal accepted limited agreed items and revised mileage, allowing total deductions of £1,401 and dismissed the appeal.

Finch and Partners Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 563 (TC) 10 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether £368,586.57 on Finch and Partners' VAT return was correctly removed as subject to the reverse charge, the amount of VAT on the amended return that was paid late, and whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse under s.59(7) VATA 1994. The tribunal held the £368,586.57 was subject to the reverse charge, that £59,951.97 of VAT on the amended return was paid late, and that there was no reasonable excuse; the surcharge was upheld only to the extent relating to that late-paid amount and otherwise set aside.

Procomm Consultancy Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 561 (TC) 10 November 2010 Procomm appealed HMRC’s refusals to allow input VAT on 18 high‑value mobile‑phone transactions in March and May 2006; the tribunal found each chain was connected to MTIC fraud (a point conceded at hearing) and examined whether Procomm knew or ought to have known of that connection. Considering the objective features of the transactions and the totality of surrounding circumstances (including Procomm’s management, finance, timing of checks, and documentary deficiencies), the tribunal concluded Procomm did know, and alternatively ought to have known, that the dealings were connected with fraud. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s denial of the input tax claims was upheld.

Professor Sir Peter Lachmann Lady Lachmann v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 560 (TC) 10 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether disposals of Inflazyme shares qualified for income tax loss relief under ICTA s574 given a prior s127 TGCA share‑for‑share exchange and Inflazyme's place of business, and whether HMRC's change of reasoning during an enquiry was a time‑barred new enquiry. The tribunal held Inflazyme had not carried on its business in the UK throughout the relevant period, so s574 relief was not available, and that HMRC did not commence a new, out‑of‑time enquiry by raising the place‑of‑business point. The appeal was dismissed and the closure notices upheld.

Robert Legg v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 562 (TC) 10 November 2010 Robert Legg applied for permission to appeal out of time against a Jeopardy Amendment and a Closure Notice issued by HMRC, which had led to large tax assessments after HMRC assumed unexplained income. The Tribunal found Legg had received and ignored correspondence, gave no reasonable excuse for the lengthy delay, and in the exercise of its discretion refused permission because of prejudice to HMRC, concerns about finality and credibility, and long unexplained delay.

Gregory Knowles v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 558 (TC) 8 November 2010 This appeal concerned a £100 penalty for filing a 2008/09 paper self-assessment return late. The appellant filed a paper return on 27 January 2010, and relied on a 29 January 2010 HMRC telephone conversation as a basis for excuse; the Tribunal found any alleged incorrect HMRC advice occurred after the paper-return deadline and that the appellant had no reasonable excuse. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed the £100 penalty.

Anthony Goudie v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 552 (TC) 5 November 2010 This appeal concerned unexplained deposits into a Woolwich account controlled by the appellant, leading HMRC to amend 2004/05 and 2005/06 returns, make discovery assessments for 2002/03 and 2003/04, and impose s.95 TMA negligence penalties. The tribunal found the appellant failed to explain £8,803.01 of deposits, rejected his limited explanations and evidence, and held HMRC acted reasonably in extrapolating the under‑declaration to adjacent years. The appeals were dismissed and the assessments, amendments and penalties confirmed.

George Huntley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 551 (TC) 5 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether the appellant proved £11,030 of travel and subsistence expenses in 2005–06 as wholly and exclusively incurred for self‑employment, and whether HMRC's related adjustments for 2002–03 and 2003–04 should stand. The tribunal found the claimed total unsupported, allowed reasonable subsistence of £8,610 for 2005–06 (£30/night accommodation; £5 lunch and £15 evening meal weekly), substituted a net adjustment of £2,420 for 2005–06, and recalculated proportional adjustments of £1,087 for 2003–04 and £1,476 for 2002–03; interest is payable and no penalties were imposed.

Morritt Properties (International) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 554 (TC) 5 November 2010 This appeal concerned a paragraph 76 assessment issued by HMRC to recover excessive group relief claimed by Morritt Properties for the 2001 accounting period. The Tribunal held that paragraph 76 is a free‑standing power separate from the paragraph 41 "discovery assessment" regime (and so not subject to the restrictions in paragraphs 42–45 of Schedule 18), and that the paragraph 76 assessment dated 4 September 2007 was made within time and was valid. The Tribunal also held that an earlier TMA agreement/amendment did not preclude HMRC from making the paragraph 76 assessment.

Mr B Njoku v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 553 (TC) 5 November 2010 Mr Njoku appealed HMRC discovery assessments and closure notices for tax years 2000/01–2005 after HMRC, relying on title/sales data and estimates, alleged undeclared property trading, rental and property‑management income. The Tribunal found omissions and upheld the discovery assessments as within time and based on negligent omission, but reduced HMRC’s property‑management income estimate to £4,200 pa and directed that stamp duty land tax (or equivalent) be allowed as a cost when computing trading profits from property sales. The appeals were otherwise dismissed and penalties for non‑production of records were upheld.

Executive Benefit Services (UK) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 550 (TC) 4 November 2010 This appeal concerned whether Executive Benefit Services (EBS) was associated with Hyndford Estates Ltd for small companies' marginal rate relief, based on whether Mr Charles McCann "controlled" Hyndford. The Tribunal held Mr McCann was a participator whose substantial unsecured loan to Hyndford had to be treated as an asset available for distribution, meaning he would receive the greater part of distributable assets and so controlled Hyndford. Accordingly Hyndford and EBS were associated and HMRC's closure notice reducing EBS's relief was upheld; the appeal was dismissed.

Ramunas Jakutis v Director of Border Revenue (Excise Duty) [2010] UKFTT 548 (TC) 4 November 2010 Mr Jakutis appealed the Border Agency’s refusal to restore his Ford Galaxy after 5,466 cigarettes were found concealed in it at Dover on 9 November 2009. The tribunal upheld the review decision, finding the cigarettes were held for profit and the detection was aggravated, and concluded that the hardship of loss and inconvenience did not amount to the exceptional hardship required to disapply the non-restoration policy. The appeal was dismissed and the vehicle remained unreleased.

Terence Basye v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 549 (TC) 4 November 2010 This appeal challenges HMRC's withdrawal of the appellant's CIS gross payment status because a self-assessment payment was recorded late. The Tribunal found the appellant failed the Schedule 11 para 4 compliance test because no reasonable excuse was proved, upheld HMRC's allocation of earlier payment to older arrears, and therefore sustained the withdrawal on the compliance ground. The separate question whether HMRC have a general discretion to cancel gross status was adjourned for further determination.

Mr A R Fairburn Representative partner in Mr A R Fairburn and Mr S A Fairburn t/a Mr Cobbler v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 536 (TC) 3 November 2010 This appeal concerned £100 penalties for late partnership returns for year ended 5 April 2008. The tribunal held that the blank paper partnership form served as a valid notice under s.12AA TMA, a partnership return was required (individual filings did not suffice), the paper return was filed late, and HMRC were entitled to require electronic filing via approved third‑party software and were not obliged to provide free software. The penalties were confirmed and the appeals dismissed.

Mr O C Lam Representative partner in MR O C Lam and Mrs W Lam t/a Ron's Plaice v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 535 (TC) 3 November 2010 This appeal concerned £100 penalties for late filing of a partnership tax return for the year to 5 April 2008. The Tribunal held the blank paper return issued 6 April 2008 was a valid notice requiring a partnership return, the return was filed after both the paper and electronic deadlines, and no reasonable excuse for lateness was proved. HMRC were entitled to require electronic filing via Self Assessment Online or approved third‑party software and were not obliged to provide free software. The penalty determinations were confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Mr R G McAlpin Representative partner in Mr R G McAlpin and Mrs P A McAlpin t/a Newtons Home Improvements v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 538 (TC) 3 November 2010 This appeal concerned £100 penalties on two partners for late filing of a partnership return for the year to 5 April 2008. The Tribunal held a blank paper partnership return served as a valid statutory notice under s12AA TMA, that the paper return was filed late (and later corrected) with no reasonable excuse for the period of default, and that HMRC validly prescribed electronic filing method/form and were not obliged to provide free software. The penalties were confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Mr T W Farrow Representative partner in Mr T W Farrow and Mr M C Cartwright t/a Kitchen and Bathroom Installations v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 534 (TC) 3 November 2010 This appeal challenged two £100 penalties for late partnership returns. The tribunal found the blank paper partnership return served as a valid notice, the partnership return was required and was filed after both the paper and electronic deadlines, and there was no reasonable excuse for the delay, so the penalties were confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Mr T W Rolton Representative partner in Mr T W Rolton, Mr B J Bryan and Mrs E F Rolton t/a Collier Row Glass v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 539 (TC) 3 November 2010 This appeal concerned £100 penalties for late filing of a partnership return. The tribunal found a blank paper partnership return served as valid notice requiring a partnership return, that the partnership return was filed late, and that there was no reasonable excuse; penalties for Mr T W Rolton and Mr B J Bryan were confirmed while Mrs E F Rolton’s penalty was withdrawn/set aside. The tribunal also held HMRC were not obliged to provide free software for electronic filing.

Mrs D Balgobin Representative partner in Mrs D Balgobin, Miss H Balgobin and Miss S Balgobin t/a Sunny Lodge v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 537 (TC) 3 November 2010 This appeal concerned £100 penalties for late partnership returns for the year to 5 April 2008. The Tribunal held a partnership return was required (a blank paper return served as a valid notice), the returns were filed after both the paper and electronic deadlines, and there was no reasonable excuse; HMRC were not obliged to provide free software and had validly prescribed electronic filing methods. The penalty determinations were upheld and the appeals dismissed.

Mr Barrie Macey v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 533 (TC) 2 November 2010 This case concerned whether a one‑off award of Morgan Stanley restricted stock units (RSUs), granted when the appellant left Ernst & Young and joined Morgan Stanley, was taxable as earnings from employment or was compensation for loss of a non‑employment asset. The Tribunal found the RSUs were part of the employment remuneration package, conditional on continued service and intended as an inducement to enter and perform employment. The RSUs were therefore earnings from employment and taxable on conversion; the appellant’s appeal was dismissed.

Mr Xhevahir Dauti v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 532 (TC) 2 November 2010 Mr Dauti appealed HMRC’s amendment to his 2006/07 self-assessment and related discovery assessments for other years which treated various unidentified bank deposits as omitted taxable income. The Tribunal found the appellant and his partner credible, accepted that many deposits were loans, repayments or monies held for others (with some corroboration), and concluded the deposits were unlikely to be income. The appeal was allowed and the adjustments for unidentified deposits in 2006/07 and the discovery assessments for 2004/05, 2005/06 and 2007/08 were reduced accordingly.

R Auksoraitus v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 547 (TC) 2 November 2010 This case concerned an appeal against HMRC's amendment of the appellant's 2004/05 self-assessment, which increased assessed trading profits and tax. The tribunal, proceeding in the appellant's absence after noting proper notice and attempts to contact him, found HMRC's bank-record-based adjustments reasonable and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also found a translated letter from the appellant's mother did not satisfactorily show the funds were loans within the 2004/05 year.

Mr Sayed Habashi v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 531 (TC) 1 November 2010 This appeal concerned penalties imposed on Mr Habashi for failing to comply with valid s.19A information notices issued by HMRC for tax years 2001/02–2006/07. The Tribunal found the notices valid, the documents requested were reasonably required and within the Appellant’s possession or power, and that reliance on his accountant did not excuse non‑compliance. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals and confirmed the fixed and daily penalties.

Mrs C A Andrew v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 546 (TC) 1 November 2010 Mrs Andrew bought a wooden gazebo for her pub garden and claimed first-year capital allowances. The Tribunal held the gazebo met the business-use test and was not part of the premises, so it qualified as plant and was eligible for first-year allowances. HMRC's characterisation of it as premises or a list C decorative asset was rejected.

1st Glass & Morror Company Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 30 (TC) 29 October 2010 This appeal challenged a 10% default surcharge (£576.81) for late VAT payment of £5,768.15 (fourth default). The Tribunal found the appellant produced no corroborating evidence of BACS/technical problems or cashflow difficulties and therefore did not have a "reasonable excuse" under s.59(7) VATA. The Tribunal also rejected a proportionality challenge to the statutory 10% surcharge and dismissed the appeal, while extending time to apply for permission to appeal pending a relevant Upper Tribunal decision.

Aberdeen Asset Management Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 524 (TC) 29 October 2010 This case concerned Aberdeen's Discounted Options Scheme (DOS) using an Isle of Man EBT, family trusts and "money box" companies to provide benefits to senior employees and whether those benefits were taxable as employment income and subject to PAYE/NIC. The Tribunal found the composite arranged steps operated in substance to deliver cash-equivalent bonuses and that the relevant Schedule E and PAYE/NIC provisions applied, while holding the option deeds were legally genuine (not shams) though their exercise was commercially improbable. The appeals failed in principle and the Tribunal deferred precise quantification and final determination pending further submissions or hearing.

Assessor Analysis Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 529 (TC) 29 October 2010 The First-tier Tribunal dismissed Assessor Analysis Services' appeal against two late‑filing penalties for the 2008–09 partnership return, holding the paper return was filed late and no reasonable excuse existed for the period of default. The appellants relied on intending to file online and not discovering until too late that third‑party software was required, but the Tribunal found the return and HMRC website clearly disclosed deadlines and software requirements and rejected claims of entrapment or inadequate disclosure. The penalties (two £100 penalties, one per partner) were confirmed.

John Redman Goldsack v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 530 (TC) 29 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Goldsack could make up missed National Insurance contributions for 1 Sept 1955–31 May 1964 under Regulation 32(1) where HMRC said his non-payment was due to failure to exercise due care and diligence. The Tribunal found that, given his youth, limited knowledge, sparse documentary notices, and the circumstances of working abroad, his ignorance was not due to a failure to exercise due care and diligence. The appeal was allowed and he was entitled to make the back payments.

Thomas Maryam v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 528 (TC) 29 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether an English partnership remained a partnership for VAT registration after one of two partners ceased to be a partner. The tribunal held that under substantive English law a partnership is not a separate legal entity and therefore ceased when one partner left; statutory deeming for VAT procedural purposes did not prevent re-registration as a sole trader. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's re-registration was upheld.

John Dignam v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 522 (TC) 28 October 2010 This appeal concerned two late‑payment surcharges for the 2007/08 tax year after the appellant paid most but not all of his tax late. The appellant relied on delayed access to funds in Ireland and on a cheque left with his accountant; the Tribunal found those explanations unsupported by evidence and insufficient to establish a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed surcharges of £4,659.44 and £258.99.

John Orrock v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 523 (TC) 28 October 2010 This appeal concerned a late‑payment surcharge of £1,054.89 imposed after Mr Orrock paid his 2008/09 tax 38 days late. The Tribunal found he had no reasonable excuse for the tax remaining unpaid after the 28‑day period and confirmed the surcharge. The Tribunal held it had no power to mitigate the penalty and could only quash or confirm it.

Neil & Megan Gratton v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 521 (TC) 28 October 2010 The tribunal considered transfers of Mr and Mrs Gratton’s UK personal pension funds to Guernsey RATS in July 1996 and whether those transfers were "authorised payments" under Scottish Equitable’s scheme rules and PS 121. It found the PS 121 conditions, notably the change‑of‑job requirement, were not met and so the transfers were not authorised; Schedule E assessments were upheld (Mr Gratton £58,650; Mrs Gratton £27,350). The tribunal directed that Scottish Equitable was not liable for PAYE and, on the facts, declined to impose penalties or interest.

Priti Lee v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 520 (TC) 28 October 2010 This appeal concerns whether Mrs Lee was carrying on a business for VAT purposes when she registered on 1 March 2004, sold land (Kingsley Court) on 31 March 2004 and claimed input tax and interest. The First-tier Tribunal found she was not carrying on a business at the relevant times, upheld HMRC’s cancellation of registration from 1 March 2004, disallowed the input tax claims and assessments, and dismissed the claim for interest. The sale was treated as outside taxable business activity for her VAT entitlement.

Connaught Contracts (Mrs S Bennett) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 545 (TC) 27 October 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of Connaught Contracts' CIS gross payment status after automated checks recorded late tax payments in the qualifying period. The Tribunal found that the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for the late payments due to exceptional external cash‑flow difficulties during the 2008–09 financial crisis and allowed the appeal. Because it found a reasonable excuse, the Tribunal did not decide proportionality or whether HMRC has a discretion to withdraw gross status.

Daryl Flagg v Director of Revenue for the UK Border Agency [2010] UKFTT 518 (TC) 27 October 2010 This is an appeal by Mr Flagg against the Director of Revenue’s refusal to restore a Peugeot seized after excise goods were found; the review decision by Officer Harris refused restoration on the Agency’s non-restoration policy and on the basis no exceptional hardship was shown. The Tribunal accepted some of Mr Flagg’s medical and vehicle evidence but concluded that his medical condition did not make possession of the seized vehicle essential and that Officer Harris’s decision was one a reasonable decision-maker could reach. The appeal was dismissed.

Excel RTI Solutions (IN AD v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 519 (TC) 27 October 2010 This appeal concerned Excel RTI Solutions' claim to recover £3,302,830 input VAT on 21 mobile‑phone consignments and whether Excel knew it was participating in transactions connected with fraudulent VAT evasion. The First‑tier Tribunal, on detailed review of documentary and banking evidence (notably FCIB flowcharts showing complex, circular and synchronised payments) and the contemporaneous J & S letters, found that Excel (through its director) did have actual knowledge of the fraudulent connection and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal did not reach the alternative "should have known" issue.

Gillex (UK) Limited (in liquidation) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 517 (TC) 27 October 2010 Gillex appealed HMRC’s refusal to repay £904,837.50 VAT claimed in respect of two April 2006 back‑to‑back transactions which HMRC’s extended verification traced into MTIC fraud involving a defaulting trader (West 1). The Tribunal found there was a tax loss caused by fraudulent evasion, that the transactions were connected to that fraud, and that Gillex — through its sole director Mr Gill — both actually knew and ought to have known of that connection. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s refusal upheld, with costs awarded to HMRC.

Mr Mark Cassin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 515 (TC) 27 October 2010 Mr Mark Cassin appealed HMRC's closure notice and amendment to his 2006–07 Self Assessment seeking travel/subsistence and vehicle loan interest deductions including retrospective claims for 2001–02 and 2002–03. The Tribunal held that only mileage allowance relief was allowable for 2006–07, that the earlier-year claims were time-barred, and that no valid out-of-time error/mistake claim had been made. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's amendment to the 2006–07 return was confirmed.

Innocent Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 516 (TC) 25 October 2010 The Tribunal considered whether Innocent's pure fruit smoothies fell within "other beverages" (excepted item 4, Group 1 Schedule 8 VATA) and thus were standard‑rated for VAT. Applying ordinary and natural meaning (informed by factual factors such as composition, texture, consumption context and physiological effects) the Tribunal held the smoothies were beverages and therefore standard‑rated. The Tribunal rejected importing an EU social‑policy gloss to redefine the exception. Decision for HMRC.

Janice Traders Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 513 (TC) 22 October 2010 Janice Traders Ltd sought reinstatement of an appeal that had been struck out for failing to comply with a Tribunal "unless" Direction to produce employee PAYE/NIC records. The Tribunal found the company gave inconsistent explanations and produced suspect or substituted P46 forms, ruled there was non-compliance, and refused reinstatement as not fair and just. The appeal remains struck out; HMRC may apply for costs.

Kuhne & Heitz Holland BV v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 514 (TC) 22 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether a customs debt arises on acceptance of a customs declaration or on release of goods into free circulation where import licences were not yet valid. The First-tier Tribunal held that the customs debt was incurred when the customs declaration was accepted (31 March) and became payable upon release into free circulation (1 April). Because no valid licence existed at the time of acceptance, the appellant was not entitled to the preferential duty rate and the Post Clearance Demand Notes were upheld. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were ordered.

Michael James Watson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 526 (TC) 22 October 2010 This appeal concerned Mr Watson's claim for a VAT refund under the DIY Builders and Converters scheme for works completed in 2006 to create a separate dwelling. HMRC refused because the original planning permission included a condition prohibiting separate occupation and no planning consent operating at the time of construction authorised a dwelling. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the retrospective planning permission granted in January 2008 did not, and had not been made to, operate from a date before or at the time the works were carried out, so the statutory planning-consent requirement was not met.

Xerox Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 527 (TC) 22 October 2010 Xerox appealed HMRC’s classification of imported multifunction printer/scanner/copier machines and parts, disputing treatment as photocopying apparatus (CN 9009) and seeking classification as automatic data-processing machines (CN 8471) and their parts under CN 8473. The Tribunal found the multifunction machines were units of automatic data-processing machines and allowed the appeal, classifying the machines under 8471 and most parts under 8473, with the limited qualification that parts suitable only for digital‑copier‑only families remain classifiable under 9009. The Tribunal granted liberty to apply on consequential matters and ordered no costs.

David McNulty v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 509 (TC) 21 October 2010 The Tribunal considered HMRC's application to strike out David McNulty's appeal on the basis that his Trustee in Bankruptcy had agreed with HMRC under TMA 1970 s.54 to accept the amended assessment. It found the Trustee was acting on behalf of the bankrupt in connection with the appeal, that a written agreement had been reached settling the assessment, and that Mr McNulty no longer had a personal interest to pursue the appeal. The Tribunal struck out the notice of appeal.

Deidre Neville-Jones v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 512 (TC) 21 October 2010 This appeal concerned a £100 fixed penalty for failure to file (and thereby pay) for the year ending 5 April 2009. The Tribunal found there was no properly constituted appeal before it because the appellant had not appealed to HMRC before bringing the matter to the Tribunal, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the substantive challenge. The Tribunal observed that, although HMRC were legally correct, their handling of the case given the appellant's residence abroad and postal difficulties was harsh.

GRD Systems v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 21 October 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's cancellation of a partnership's gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme after a 12‑month compliance check found six late payments outside permitted tolerances. The Tribunal held the partnership failed the compliance test and rejected the partners' asserted "reasonable excuse" (including reliance on an expected refund or delay in HMRC's processing). The cancellation determination was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Houston Cox Interiors Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 510 (TC) 21 October 2010 Houston Cox bought the business of Elvetham for nil consideration while Elvetham had large trading losses, and thereafter Houston Cox advanced funds to Elvetham recorded as loans so Elvetham could pay creditors including HMRC. HMRC treated the situation as not giving Houston Cox entitlement to set off Elvetham’s losses; the First-tier Tribunal found the transfers were loans as reflected in the companies’ accounts and refused to recharacterise them as consideration for the business. The appeal was dismissed.

Peter R S Earl v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 511 (TC) 21 October 2010 This appeal concerned two late payment surcharges imposed on Mr Peter R S Earl for the 2007/08 balancing liability after he paid part of the tax late in 2009. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse covering the entire period of default, and that there was no Time to Pay agreement in place before the surcharge trigger date, so both surcharges were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Manor Park Trading Company Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 505 (TC) 20 October 2010 Manor Park imported unembroidered cotton bed linen declared as UAE origin but made from yarn spun and woven in Pakistan; OLAF found the true origin to be Pakistan and HMRC issued a post‑clearance demand for anti‑dumping duties. The Tribunal held the goods originated in Pakistan under the applicable origin rules, treated the Sharjah Chamber of Commerce's incorrect Certificates of Origin as an "error on the part of the customs authorities," but found that error was one the experienced importer should have detected, so Article 220(2)(b) did not prevent recovery. The appeal was dismissed and the demand upheld.

Scotpackaging Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 504 (TC) 20 October 2010 Scotpackaging Ltd appealed HMRC default surcharge assessments totaling £6,671.23 for repeated late VAT payments between Sept 2007 and Mar 2010. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding the statutory graduated surcharge regime (s59 and related provisions) was correctly applied and that ordinary business cash-flow shortfalls and ignorance of a publicised Budget concession did not amount to a "reasonable excuse."

Chandraprakash Shanthiratnam v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 360 (TC) 19 October 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC's treatment of a £50,000 partial surrender from a cluster of 50 offshore life policies, where HMRC assessed £42,500 as taxable income. The Tribunal accepted that the investments were offshore life policies (despite lack of produced policy documents) and held that the statutory partial‑surrender computation (deducting 5% per year from the cash receipt) applied, so HMRC's assessment was upheld. The Tribunal noted that deficiency relief on eventual final surrender can, in principle, correct earlier excess taxation and commented that different forms of surrender could have produced different interim tax outcomes.

Frank Hudson Transport Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 503 (TC) 19 October 2010 This case concerned whether cars acquired under hire purchase agreements in the company’s name were “made available” by Frank Hudson Transport Ltd for ITEPA car benefit purposes, and whether a hired executive football box was a taxable benefit. The Tribunal found the finance arrangements and use of the company’s name produced a commercial benefit that amounted to the company making the cars available, so the car-related appeals were disallowed and related mileage/fuel payments and the Lexus transfer were taxable. The Tribunal held the hired Huddersfield executive box was hired wholly and exclusively for business and allowed that appeal. HMRC’s assessments of 21 May 2009 were confirmed in part, with a concession on treatment of directors’ reimbursements under s.144 reducing car charges.

Samuel Megwa v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 543 (TC) 19 October 2010 Mr Megwa, a Nigerian seafarer, appealed HMRC’s refusal of foreign earnings deductions (FED/SED) for periods when HMRC treated him as resident and ordinarily resident in the UK. The Tribunal found he did not dwell in the UK with the necessary degree of permanence between May 2001 and 22 February 2002, having returned to Ireland to be with his family, and held he became resident and ordinarily resident on 22 February 2002. As a result, he did not meet the qualifying/eligible periods for FED/SED and the appeal was dismissed.

Rincham Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 502 (TC) 18 October 2010 Rincham Ltd appealed against an HMRC information notice issued under s.20(8A) TMA, arguing compliance would be onerous and unlawfully broad (seeking subscriber details from 6 April 1998). The Tribunal found the notice not onerous, accepted that s.20(5)'s six‑year limit does not apply to s.20(8A) notices, applied the presumption of regularity to the Commissioner’s consent, but varied the notice to exclude documents generated after 4 September 2008. The notice was otherwise confirmed.

Carolyn Browne v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 496 (TC) 15 October 2010 This appeal concerned a £100 SDLT flat-rate penalty for late filing of a land transaction return after purchase of a flat. The Tribunal found that Ms Browne had reasonably relied on her solicitors to complete and file the return, and that those solicitors were later closed by the regulator, which prevented timely filing. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that reliance on a third party in these circumstances amounted to a "reasonable excuse" and set aside the penalty.

David Williams v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 508 (TC) 15 October 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC’s withdrawal of the appellant’s Construction Industry Scheme gross payment status after two instalment payments were made late. The tribunal found the 32‑ and 67‑day delays were outside the 14‑day grace in regulation 32, that the appellant had no reasonable excuse given available overdraft facilities, and that HMRC lawfully and not unfairly exercised its discretion under section 66(1). The appeal was dismissed.

Moonlight Textiles Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 500 (TC) 15 October 2010 Moonlight Textiles appealed HMRC’s amendment to its 2004–05 self-assessment disputing tax deductions for works to its premises. The Tribunal found the works to be a single scheme of alterations and improvements that changed the character of the building, and therefore capital, not revenue, expenditure; limited items were allowed as plant & machinery. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s amendment upheld.

Mr Anthony Metcalfe v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 495 (TC) 15 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Metcalfe’s short ownership and brief occupation of Apartment 2.14 Westgate, York, amounted to a “residence” for capital gains tax private residence relief. The Tribunal found his evidence did not establish residence, and alternatively that any occupation was temporary and lacked the necessary permanence or expectation of continuity. The appeal against HMRC’s discovery assessment was dismissed.

Mr Craig Lawton (trading as C B Lawton Drywall and Plastering Contractors) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 507 (TC) 15 October 2010 This appeal concerned late filing penalties under regulation 40A for contractor returns due 19 May 2006 and 19 May 2007, which were not received by HMRC until 3 July 2009. The tribunal found the appellant had no reasonable excuse (and, if any excuse existed, it ended on receipt of penalty notices) and confirmed penalties of £1,200 for 2005–06 and £558.86 for 2006–07, dismissing the appeal and upholding a total penalty of £1,758.86.

Mr Jason Pope (deceased) Mrs Genevra Pope Mr Alan Pope v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 506 (TC) 15 October 2010 This appeal concerned a £36,425.97 "Extra Payment" made under a life policy after Jason Pope's disappearance and whether it was exempt as damages for death/personal injury, whether it was properly characterised as interest for tax purposes, and who was liable to tax. The Tribunal held the statutory exemption did not extend to the life policy payment, that the Extra Payment met the legal tests for interest, and that Mr and Mrs Pope (as named recipients under the Deed of Discharge) were taxable; the hearing determined principle only and left quantification of tax for the parties or a further hearing.

Mr Dennis Albert Gerdner t/a Gardners Transport Co v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 488 (TC) 14 October 2010 Mr Dennis Albert Gerdner applied in December 2009 for permission to appeal a VAT assessment dated 1 July 1980. The Tribunal refused to extend time because he failed to provide sufficient evidence or adequate reasons for the long delay, and many substantive complaints were unsupported or outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction. The application for leave to appeal out of time was not admitted.

Samson Publishing Ltd E J C Fehler N S Fehler v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 489 (TC) 14 October 2010 This case concerned whether cars jointly owned by Samson Publishing and its two director‑shareholders gave rise to taxable car benefits and whether the directors were negligent for penalty purposes. The Tribunal held that the statutory car benefit regime applied and upheld the discovery assessments against the company and the directors. The Tribunal set aside the penalties against the directors for negligence.

Sub One Limited (t/a Subway) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 487 (TC) 14 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether toasted Subway sandwiches ("toasted Subs") and meatball marinara sold by the appellant were "hot food" under note 3(b) group 1 schedule 8 VATA 1994 and therefore subject to standard-rate VAT. The Tribunal found both products were heated, had substantial parts above ambient when provided, and that the supplier's dominant purpose was to enable consumption above ambient temperature. The appeal was dismissed and the decision was directed to operate as a lead decision for related franchisee appeals.

3rd Generation Communication Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 486 (TC) 12 October 2010 3rd Generation Communication Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to repay c.£394,450 input VAT claimed on four July 2006 mobile-phone export deals. The First-tier Tribunal found there was a tax loss caused by fraudulent evasion and that 3GCL's transactions were connected to that fraud. The tribunal further held that 3GCL, through its director, knew or ought to have known of that connection and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to HMRC.

Benbridge Care Homes Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 493 (TC) 12 October 2010 Benbridge claimed VAT repayments based on input tax extracted from its accounts; HMRC inspected records and reconstructed output tax from those same accounts, reducing the repayment returns to nil. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC lawfully recalculated the returns under s.83 as payment returns after reconstructing output tax from the appellant’s accounts and dismissed the appeal.

OM Properties Investment Co Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 494 (TC) 12 October 2010 OM Properties (landlord) paid building insurance in its own name and recharged tenants; the tribunal considered whether those recharges were an exempt "insurance transaction" under article 13B(a) of the Sixth Directive by reason of a block policy. The tribunal found no contract or position by which OM effected insurance cover for tenants, tenants had no enforceable rights under the policy, and the arrangement did not exhibit the key characteristics of a block policy. The appeal was dismissed.

Alexander Thomson McLeod v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 542 (TC) 11 October 2010 This appeal concerns HMRC's withdrawal of the appellant's Gross Payment Status after repeated late tax payments. The First-tier Tribunal found the payment failures were repeated and significant, rejected the appellant's plea of reasonable excuse (which relied on general recession-related financial difficulties) and confirmed HMRC's withdrawal of Gross Payment Status. The Tribunal also said it could not make detailed factual findings about the appellant's finances on the evidence before it.

Michael Mitchell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 485 (TC) 11 October 2010 Mr Mitchell appealed £5,500 of fixed late-return penalties under the Construction Industry Scheme for five tax years after filing returns late. The tribunal found the penalties were correctly calculated, that Mr Mitchell had no "reasonable excuse" for the delays, and rejected his proportionality/ECHR challenge. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties upheld.

(1)Trustees of the Bessie Taube Discretionary Settlement Trust (2)Trustees of the Raymond Taube Discretionary Settlement Trust (3)Raymond Taube v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 473 (TC) 7 October 2010 This case concerned whether special cash dividends paid to two discretionary trusts after a company share reorganisation were trust income or capital, and whether HMRC validly made a s.29 TMA discovery assessment on the life tenant, Mr Taube. The Tribunal held the payments were bona fide distributions of income (not capital reconstructs) and so taxable as income; it also upheld HMRC’s s.29 discovery assessment on Mr Taube while rejecting application of s.29(4) on the basis that the trustees’ advisers were not persons “acting on [his] behalf.”

A. Leolin Price CBE QC v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 474 (TC) 7 October 2010 This appeal concerned how to value the deceased Mrs Price’s undivided half-share of residential freehold for IHT when "related property" (the husband’s other half) existed. The Tribunal held s.161 IHTA requires aggregating the deceased’s property with related property and valuing that aggregate as if offered for sale together (producing the full freehold value), and that notional sale costs or charging of debts should not be deducted from that notional sale price. The Tribunal referred remaining detailed valuation questions (apportionment and any percentage deduction) to the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber).

Dalton Piercy Parish Council v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 478 (TC) 7 October 2010 This appeal concerned penalties for the late submission of Dalton Piercy Parish Council's 2008/09 Employers Annual Return. The Tribunal held the council had not established a "reasonable excuse" for the late filing and found any alleged excuse did not persist throughout the default period. The penalty was upheld but reduced to the tax liability of £216.

Greatham Parish Council v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 479 (TC) 7 October 2010 Greatham Parish Council appealed against late-filing penalties for its Employers Annual Return (P35) for year ending 5 April 2009. The Tribunal found the council had no reasonable excuse for late filing—it had not registered for online filing, had ample time, and did not use the available paper return—and dismissed the appeal, upholding a reduced penalty of £200.

Mr Paschal Chinedum Opara v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 480 (TC) 7 October 2010 This appeal concerned A notices issued to Mr Opara for 2002/03 and 2003/04 requiring bank statements, mortgage details, and information tracing unexplained lodgements/withdrawals. The Tribunal proceeded in the appellant's absence, found no satisfactory excuse for non-attendance, held the requested documents were reasonably required for HMRC's enquiry under A(2)/(2A), and dismissed the appeal, confirming the notices in full.

Mr Swallow v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 481 (TC) 7 October 2010 This case concerns an appeal by Mr Swallow against HMRC's closure notice disallowing loss relief claimed for an investment in a marketed scheme; HMRC had opened a parallel criminal investigation into the scheme’s promoters and executed search warrants. The Tribunal stayed the civil tax appeal for six months and extended HMRC’s time to serve their Statement of Case, concluding that there was substantial factual overlap between the civil issues and the criminal investigation such that disclosure restrictions could prejudice a fair civil hearing. The appeal was reallocated to the Complex category and the Tribunal required further case management near the end of the stay.

Mohammed Reza Rastegar (trading as MO;s Restaurant) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 471 (TC) 6 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether HMRC's compulsory VAT registration and a revised assessment of £268,084.98 were time-barred. The Tribunal found HMRC became aware of the decisive facts (self-assessment returns showing turnover above the threshold and absence of VAT registration) no earlier than 15 February 2008, so the one-year limitation under s73(6) VATA was met by the 9 February 2009 revised assessment. The Tribunal also held that the appellant's failure to notify created penalty liability (reliance on a professional adviser was not a reasonable excuse), so the three-year limit under s77(1) was extendable to 20 years under s77(4) despite HMRC choosing not to impose penalties. The preliminary time-bar challenge was dismissed and the substantive hearing on quantum was adjourned.

Nathaniel & Co Solicitors v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 472 (TC) 6 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether Nathaniel & Co had made a valid written VAT reclaim under Regulation 37 within the three‑year time limit for an alleged overpayment of £32,048.11. The Tribunal found the appellant did not prove, on the balance of probabilities, that a reconciliation "Table" was enclosed with their 30 October 2003 letter, and that the letter alone did not state the method of calculation. The Tribunal also held that, even if the Table had been sent, the combined documents would not have objectively disclosed the amount and method to a reasonably competent VAT officer, so the claim was out of time and the appeal was dismissed.

Telement Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 470 (TC) 6 October 2010 This appeal concerned whether Telement Ltd knew or ought to have known that a single 31 March 2006 transaction in 1,900 Nokia N70 phones formed part of MTIC fraud, so that HMRC could refuse repayment of input VAT of £71,487.50. The Tribunal found the director was not dishonest but had turned a "blind eye" and that, given multiple suspicious features and inadequate due diligence, Telement ought to have known the transaction was connected with fraud. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s refusal of repayment upheld, with costs awarded to HMRC.

Mr Ajay Sharma v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 468 (TC) 5 October 2010 This case concerns HMRC’s amendments and discovery assessments that substantially increased Mr Sharma’s declared taxable profits for several years and imposed penalties for inadequate records. The Tribunal found Mr Sharma’s business records woefully inadequate, that he failed to discharge the burden of proof to rebut HMRC’s estimates, and therefore dismissed his appeal, confirming the assessments and penalties.

Shadow Photographic Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 467 (TC) 4 October 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC’s retrospective cancellation of Shadow Photographic Ltd’s VAT registration under Schedule 1 paragraph 13(3) VATA 1994. The Tribunal, proceeding in the company’s absence, found no evidence the company ever traded or prepared to trade and treated a single large invoice predating incorporation as suspicious. It held HMRC’s cancellation from the date of registration was justified and dismissed the appeal.

John Clark (No. 2) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 458 (TC) 30 September 2010 This appeal concerned apportionment of a VAT refund under the DIY housebuilders scheme after Mr Clark converted a garage/stable block into a dwelling. The Tribunal held apportionment must be by reference to the respective parts of the original building (not the completed building), that volume is the correct basis in principle but floor area is an acceptable proxy where it makes no material difference, and that roof space used for general storage remains part of the garage. The Tribunal allowed the appeal in part and fixed the refundable VAT at £4,747.37.

Judith Naylor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 576 (TC) 30 September 2010 This appeal concerned a first fixed penalty for late filing of the appellant’s 2007–08 self-assessment return. The appellant relied on caring for a seriously ill father as a "reasonable excuse" for late filing, but the Tribunal found she had not shown a reasonable excuse for the whole period of default and that there was an unreasonable delay after the impediment had ceased. The appeal was dismissed and the first fixed penalty upheld.

Kenneth Watson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 461 (TC) 30 September 2010 Mr Watson appealed against a £866.70 5% surcharge for paying his 2007/08 balancing tax 59 days late. The Tribunal found he had taken some steps (negotiating with his bank and arranging a holiday) but did not act as a prudent business person would have and did not contact HMRC when bank negotiations faltered. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge confirmed.

Mr Abdul Majid v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 459 (TC) 30 September 2010 This appeal by Mr Abdul Majid challenged HMRC’s amendments to his 2004–05 self-assessment (increasing taxable income and Class IV NICs) and a civil penalty for an incorrect return. The Tribunal found Mr Majid kept inadequate business records, failed to discharge the burden of proof, and accepted HMRC’s mileage‑based adjustments (supported by council odometer readings); the penalty (mitigated by 80%) was held to be engaged and proportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

Oliver Isaac Iny v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 30 September 2010 This appeal concerned a 10 October 1994 sale by Oliver Iny of all shares in Castlegold to Harlequin for £20,000 and whether that disposal was at arm's length for s 17 TCGA purposes. The tribunal found the sale was not at arm's length and therefore s 17 applied, and it provisionally assessed Castlegold's net asset (market) value at £2,129,526 on that date for tax assessment, leaving minor adjustments and any continuation open.

R L Mallinson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 575 (TC) 30 September 2010 This appeal challenged a £100 flat-rate penalty for filing a 2008 Corporation Tax return late (due 31 Dec 2009, filed 5 Feb 2010). The appellant argued postal strikes and normal agent practice that the director would assume the agent had filed constituted a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal held there was no reasonable excuse throughout the period of default and confirmed the penalty, noting a company cannot transfer statutory responsibility to its agent.

Stephen Pariser v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 460 (TC) 30 September 2010 This case concerns 14 flat-rate £100 penalties imposed on Mr Pariser for failing to submit land transaction returns within 30 days of the effective date (18 May 2009). The Tribunal found no corroborative evidence that a letter dated 2 June 2009 enclosing a return was posted or received by HMRC, concluded the returns were late, found no reasonable excuse, and upheld all 14 penalties. The appeal was dismissed.

W.R.(Bill) Dunster v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 462 (TC) 30 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether the Appellant's purpose-built floating home "Zedfactory" qualified as "the construction of a building designed as a dwelling" for the DIY builders' VAT refund. The Tribunal found the structure to be a houseboat or other floating decked structure within Item 2 of Group 9 of Schedule 8, not a "building" for Group 5 purposes, and dismissed the appeal. No refund was allowed.

Aber Roof Truss Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 454 (TC) 29 September 2010 This appeal concerns whether Mr Adams was entitled to statutory sick pay (SSP) for 5–20 June 2008 after straining knee ligaments playing football and producing a GP MED3 certificate. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that he was incapable of work for that period and upheld HMRC’s decision that the employer owed £135.72. The employer’s refusal to pay based on the injury being self-inflicted and prior absenteeism did not negate the entitlement.

Desmond Magee & Sons (A Partnership) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 456 (TC) 29 September 2010 Desmond Magee & Sons appealed HMRC's withdrawal of their gross payment status under the CIS after a scheduled review that recorded six late PAYE payments by the two partners. The Tribunal found the defaults occurred, that they exceeded the de minimis threshold, and rejected the partnership's claim of reasonable excuse based on delayed payments from the Northern Ireland Housing Executive and use of government time-to-pay arrangements; the appeal was dismissed and gross status withdrawn.

Holland Kitchen & Bathroom Design v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 541 (TC) 29 September 2010 This appeal concerned a £100 penalty for late submission of a CIS return due for receipt by HMRC on 19 April 2010; HMRC received it on 22 April 2010. The appellant claimed they posted the return on 9 April but produced no proof of postage despite prior advice to retain such evidence. The First-tier Tribunal found no reasonable excuse and, accordingly, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the penalty.

Cirencester Rugby Football Club v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 453 (TC) 28 September 2010 Cirencester RFC appealed an HMRC VAT assessment claiming input tax on construction of a new pitch should be attributable (at least in part) to taxable supplies of pitch‑side advertising rather than wholly to exempt membership subscriptions. The tribunal found there was a direct and immediate link between the pitch construction costs and the taxable supply of advertising rights and allowed the appeal on the substantive attribution point, while leaving timing and consequential matters open for 28 days.

Phonepoint Communications Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 452 (TC) 28 September 2010 Phonepoint sought repayment of input VAT of £738,378.12 for June–July 2006 arising from 20 wholesale mobile-phone deal chains; HMRC disallowed the claims alleging MTIC (carousel) fraud. The tribunal found each deal chain was implemented to defraud HMRC, that HMRC suffered a VAT loss traceable to missing traders in the chains, and that Phonepoint (through its director Mr Norris) knew or ought to have known of the fraudulent purpose. The appeal was dismissed and the input tax repayments were refused.

Mr George Waller v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 27 September 2010 Mr Waller, a self‑employed taxi driver, sought an award of costs after HMRC withdrew closure and discovery assessments and a penalty following an enquiry. The Tribunal, applying Rule 21 (the Special Commissioners' costs rule preserved by transitional provisions), held it could consider only HMRC's conduct from when the appeals were before the Special Commissioners (22 Jan–2 Apr 2009) and that HMRC did not act "wholly unreasonably" in that period. The application for costs was refused.

Eurosel Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 451 (TC) 23 September 2010 Eurosel appealed HMRC's refusal to repay input VAT of £267,850 claimed on exports of urine testing strips, contending the transactions were legitimate. The tribunal found there was a substantial fraudulent VAT loss in the dirty chains involving Casa and Digikom, that Eurosel's transactions were connected to that fraud, and that Mr Jordon knew or ought to have known the-only-reasonable-explanation was fraudulent evasion. The appeal was dismissed and repayment refused.

Eclipse Film Partners No. 35 LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 448 (TC) 22 September 2010 Eclipse Film Partners No. 35 LLP appealed HMRC's closure notice that it carried on no trade; procedural disputes arose over disclosure, timetable delays and whether a pre‑trial review should be listed. The tribunal ordered a precautionary pre‑trial review, directed the Appellant to disclose all relevant documents (including emails and correspondence after 5 April 2007) up to a cut‑off of 30 November 2009, declined to require a burdensome list of lost/removed documents, and refused to order reciprocal disclosure from HMRC; the hearing was to be listed by the end of July 2011.

Former North Wiltshire District Council(now abolished and replaced by Wiltshire Council) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 449 (TC) 22 September 2010 This case concerned Wiltshire Council's late appeals against HMRC refusals of VAT repayment claims for off-street parking and whether the Tribunal should extend time to appeal. The Tribunal held it was not bound to apply CPR 3.9(1) but could consider its criteria; applying the overriding objective and a proportional assessment (including merits), the Tribunal granted extensions for the decisions of 14 Dec 2007 and 7 Jul 2008 so the 2 Oct 2009 appeals are treated as in time. Consequential directions were given and permission-to-appeal period noted.

Gilders Transport Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 446 (TC) 22 September 2010 Gilders Transport appealed default VAT surcharges imposed by HMRC for multiple periods where VAT payments were late, arguing "reasonable excuse" due to cashflow problems from DEFRA's delayed payments and reliance on HMRC advice. The Tribunal found a reasonable excuse for the period to 31 March 2008 (insufficiency of funds caused by DEFRA delays) and for three later periods (reliance on HMRC's incorrect telephone advice and a prior withdrawal of a surcharge), but dismissed the appeal for the period to 30 September 2008. The 30 September 2008 default was treated as the first default and its surcharge was recalculated at 2% (£1,946.36).

Manuel Soria Hernandez v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 447 (TC) 22 September 2010 This appeal concerned a review decision refusing restoration of 3,200 cigarettes and 3.6 kg tobacco seized at Stansted and later forfeited by a magistrates' court. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to revisit the magistrates' forfeiture finding and was confined to whether the refusal to restore was unreasonable. The Tribunal, proceeding in the appellant's absence, accepted contemporaneous signed interview notes as reliable and found the refusal to restore to be eminently reasonable, dismissing the appeal.

Gardner Shaw (London) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 444 (TC) 21 September 2010 Gardner Shaw appealed HMRC’s refusal to restore a seized consignment of beer, arguing HMRC’s decision was unreasonable. The Tribunal found HMRC’s concerns about unexplained delay, unclear driver identity and uncertain ownership/title (payment by cheque occurred after detention and Erasmus’s terms retained title) were not unreasonable. The Tribunal held HMRC’s Decision Letter of 28 May 2009 was within the range of reasonable and proportionate decisions and dismissed the appeal.

Jason Terrence Moore v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 445 (TC) 21 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether 144 Bishop's Rise was the appellant's "only or main residence" for capital gains tax relief. The Tribunal found the purchase was a renovation-and-let project, the appellant's limited occupation was for renovation not residence, and contemporaneous documentary evidence did not support a claim of main residence. The appeal was dismissed and the case was adjourned for the parties to agree figures.

Mr John Stephen Torkington v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 441 (TC) 17 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether interest paid by Mr Torkington on a personal loan was deductible under s360(1)(b) ICTA 1988 as interest on a loan to a close company that was used "wholly and exclusively for the purposes of the business." The Tribunal found Weatherwise (UK) Ltd’s lending to its Canadian associate and related commercial activities were part of its business in a wider, flexible sense, and that the funds were used wholly and exclusively for those business purposes. Accordingly the Tribunal allowed the appeal and found the s360(1)(b) conditions satisfied.

A One Distribution (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 16 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether A One Distribution was entitled to input VAT on four back-to-back export deals or whether the company knew, or ought to have known, the transactions were linked to MTIC fraud. The Tribunal found the company's due diligence was largely a sham, contemporaneous communications and trading practices were highly suspicious, and on the balance of probabilities the company (through its traders) either knew or ought to have known of the fraud. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's disallowance of input tax was upheld.

Graham Carter v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 501 (TC) 16 September 2010 Graham Carter appealed HMRC amendments, discovery assessments and negligence penalties for 1998–99 to 2006–07 relating to overstated interest deductions and unrecorded garden-centre receipts. The tribunal accepted HMRC's revised figures and reasonable best‑judgement estimates, found the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proof, and confirmed the assessments and penalties. The appeal was dismissed in full.

M S Foods v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 16 September 2010 M S Foods, a VAT-registered wholesaler, appealed a best-judgment assessment under s.73(1) VATA 1994 of £18,520 (plus interest) imposed after HMRC officers found claimed input tax on standard-rated goods exceeded output tax and the appellant produced limited records. The Tribunal concluded HMRC had sufficient material and acted reasonably in making the assessment, rejected the appellant's asserted c.9.3% wastage as insufficiently evidenced, accepted lower wastage allowances (2% in the old warehouse, 1% in the new), and dismissed the appeal.

TGS Construction Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 438 (TC) 16 September 2010 TGS appealed a 15% VAT default surcharge imposed after it paid VAT late for the period to 30 April 2009. The tribunal found TGS’s late payment was directly caused by a major customer (Midas) failing to pay a significant overdue debt which TGS had reasonably expected and could not have prevented by reasonable foresight, and so constituted a reasonable excuse under s59(7) VATA; the surcharge notice was set aside.

The Sandrock Hotel (Partnership) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 484 (TC) 16 September 2010 This case concerned whether HMRC validly commenced an enquiry into the Sandrock Hotel partnership's 2007/08 self-assessment by delivering a notice on 3 November 2009 or whether delivery occurred on 4 November 2009, affecting timeliness. The FTT found on the balance of probabilities that HMRC proved delivery on 3 November 2009 based on an officer's witness statement, vehicle log and filenote, and held that pushing the notice through the property's letter slot was a valid form of service under the Taxes Acts. The appeal was dismissed.

C A M Anderson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 432 (TC) 15 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Anderson could recover £8,551.56 of VAT that suppliers had charged at 17.5% instead of the reduced 5% under the DIY Builders and Converters scheme. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding that HMRC was not obliged to repay the overcharged element and that the correct route was for suppliers to make credit adjustments (subject to statutory time limits). The Tribunal also said it had no jurisdiction to entertain the appellant's public law legitimate expectation claim against HMRC.

GE Medical Systems Information Technology Gmbh v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 437 (TC) 15 September 2010 This appeal concerned classification of two anaesthesia-related gas-analysis modules (SAM and Capnostat CO2). HMRC conceded the goods could fit headings 90.18 and 90.27 and that Chapter 90 Note 2(a) applied; the Tribunal applied GIR 3 (under GIR 6) and held the modules are parts of a patient monitoring system properly classifiable to subheading 9018.20.00, quashing the earlier review decision.

Christopher Huhtala v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 429 (TC) 13 September 2010 This appeal concerned a self‑employed journalist's claim for £10,000 of premises costs for moving, mooring and living on his boat in France for research. The tribunal held the appellant failed to prove those costs were incurred "wholly and exclusively" for the trade because they had a duality of business and personal purpose, and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also rejected the notion of allowing a 50% apportionment where expenses are not wholly and exclusively for the trade.

Radarbeam Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 431 (TC) 10 September 2010 Radarbeam sought repayment of input VAT (~£4.96m) for eleven April–June 2006 deals; HMRC denied the claims on the ground the deals were connected to fraudulent VAT evasion. The Tribunal found the eleven transactions were part of chains linked to defaulting traders and that Radarbeam (through its director Mr Todd) had actual knowledge of the fraud, so the input tax was disallowed and HMRC was awarded costs.

Uniplex (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 422 (TC) 10 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether additional amounts paid to employees under a tax-avoidance payroll scheme were earnings "from" employment or non‑employment distributions (dividends) under the scheme. The Tribunal found the documented discretionary trust and substitute arrangements were not implemented or satisfactorily evidenced, and that the extra payments effectively equated to normal remuneration. The payments were therefore held to be taxable earnings from employment and the appeal was dismissed.

Mr I Agus v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 425 (TC) 9 September 2010 Mr Agus appealed HMRC's amendment disallowing a claimed £100,000 loss from aborted 2006 concerts, asserting he had promoted the events personally. The First‑tier Tribunal found contemporaneous corporate documents, contracts, VAT filings and third‑party publicity identified West Yorkshire Live Events Ltd (WYLEL) as the promoter, not Mr Agus, and rejected his unsupported post‑hoc evidence of personal loans and expenditure. The appeal was dismissed and Mr Agus was not entitled to the loss relief; quantum was left undetermined.

P Nineham v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 428 (TC) 9 September 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC amendments and discovery assessments in respect of DJ income for 2000/01–2003/04 after bank deposits exceeded the taxpayer's declared income. The Tribunal found the taxpayer's records and late, non‑contemporaneous schedules unreliable, upheld HMRC's estimated additional income and discovery assessments, and dismissed the appeal.

Mr Joseph Horan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 427 (TC) 8 September 2010 HMRC seized 6,400 cigarettes and 11 kg hand‑rolling tobacco from Mr Horan after coach searches in May and July 2009. Mr Horan declined initial interview, later withdrew a Magistrates' Court appeal without explanation and did not attend the Tribunal hearing. The First‑tier Tribunal held that permitting him to relitigate the same personal‑use argument would be an abuse of process and, on the merits, found HMRC's refusal to restore the goods reasonable and proportionate with no exceptional circumstances established. The appeal was dismissed.

Mr Richard Sidgwick v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 421 (TC) 8 September 2010 This appeal concerned a claim for a VAT refund on a 13 amp electric heat‑storage Aga installed in a DIY house, and whether it counted as "building materials" under s.35(1B) VATA 1994 read with Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 22. The Tribunal found the Aga is primarily designed for cooking and that any heating it provides is incidental, so it is not an appliance "designed to heat space" and does not fall within Note 22 as building materials. The appellant's refund claim was refused and the appeal dismissed; no expenses were awarded.

Mr Toby Turner v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 483 (TC) 8 September 2010 This appeal concerned 22 late‑filing CIS penalties totalling £2,200 for monthly periods April–July 2009 and whether the appellant had a "reasonable excuse" under s.118(2) TMA. The tribunal found the returns were late, rejected ignorance of the obligation and reliance on an accountant as a general reasonable excuse, but accepted that HMRC’s delay in enabling online filing and subsequent procedural difficulties provided a reasonable excuse for specific September and October periods. The appeal was allowed in part and penalties were reduced by £800 to £1,400.

Anthony Cude v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 424 (TC) 7 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether a £75,107.61 payment made by Post Office Ltd to Mr Cude on closure of his sub-post office was capital (for disposal of goodwill) or compensation connected with loss of office. The First-tier Tribunal found the payment was received in connection with Mr Cude’s loss of office and therefore, for ITEPA purposes, taxable as employment income subject to the £30,000 s.403 exemption. After the exemption, £45,107.61 was treated as taxable employment income and the appeal was dismissed.

Clive Redmond v UK Border Agency [2010] UKFTT 420 (TC) 7 September 2010 This appeal concerned the UK Border Agency's refusal to restore tobacco, alcohol and a vehicle seized when no condemnation proceedings were pursued. The Tribunal held that, because the goods were deemed forfeit under paragraph 5, Schedule 3 CEMA, it would be an abuse of process to allow the appellant to argue "own use" before the Tribunal, and that the reviewing officer acted reasonably in refusing restoration. The appeal was dismissed and the goods and vehicle remained forfeited.

Furniture Finders of Winsford Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 426 (TC) 7 September 2010 This appeal concerned whether Furniture Finders of Winsford Ltd qualified as a "charity" for VAT zero‑rating of sales of donated goods. The tribunal found the company was not established for exclusively charitable purposes and therefore was not a charity for VAT zero‑rating. The tribunal also held that HMRC lacks power to confer charitable status on an unregistered body and dismissed the appeal.

G T Plasterers v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 492 (TC) 7 September 2010 This appeal concerned 244 late-filing CIS contractor-return penalties for periods between 5 Oct 2007 and 5 Nov 2009, totalling £27,000. The appellant had delayed registration after a partner’s death and argued stress and HMRC’s failure to issue returns provided a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal rejected those arguments, holding the taxpayer retained the primary obligation to register and file and dismissing the appeal. Penalties were confirmed.

Ethical Trading Initiative v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 423 (TC) 3 September 2010 This case concerned whether supplies made by the Ethical Trading Initiative (ETI) to its corporate members were VAT-exempt under item 1(e), Group 9, Schedule 9 VATA. The FTT found ETI's objects were political/philanthropic and in the public domain, and that the supplies to corporate members were referable only to those aims. The appeal was dismissed and the supplies held exempt.

Glaxosmithkline Services Unlimited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 418 (TC) 3 September 2010 GSK appealed HMRC's decision that ready-to-drink Lucozade Sport and its powder Drink Mix are standard-rated as "beverages" or products for preparing beverages under Group 1, Schedule 8 VATA 1994. The First-tier Tribunal applied ordinary‑usage criteria (drawing on Bioconcepts) and factual evidence on composition, marketing and consumption, and held the liquid is a beverage and the powder is for preparation of a beverage. The Tribunal rejected the contention that nutritional/functional attributes re‑characterised the products as zero‑rated liquid/functional foods, dismissed the appeal and awarded costs to HMRC.

NG International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 417 (TC) 3 September 2010 This appeal concerned NG International's claims for repayment of input VAT on mobile phone purchases in 03/2006 and 04–06/2006, which HMRC refused on the basis that the purchases were connected to MTIC fraud. The Tribunal found that the purchases traced through deal chains to seven defaulting UK traders who had not paid output VAT, that there was a sufficient connection between those frauds and NG's purchases, and that NG (through Mr Riyait) should have known of that connection. HMRC's refusals were therefore largely upheld: the March 2006 claim was disallowed in full and almost all of the April–June 2006 claim was disallowed, with a small remainder allowed.

R W Westworth Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 477 (TC) 3 September 2010 R W Westworth Ltd appealed HMRC's cancellation of its gross payment status after 12 late PAYE payments in the review year. The tribunal found the company had a continuous reasonable excuse because it had reasonably relied on a paid consultant who was entrusted with and actually managed its cash and PAYE administration. The appeal was allowed and the company was treated as having satisfied the compliance test for the Review Period.

Baldev Singh Sahota v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 416 (TC) 2 September 2010 This appeal concerned an HMRC excise duty assessment of £990 for red diesel found in the appellant's van. The Tribunal accepted the appellant's credible oral evidence about his typical weekly mileage and ownership period and found HMRC had inappropriately relied on total vehicle mileage (including periods before his ownership). The Tribunal recalculated the shortfall and reduced the duty payable to £372.

DSG Retail Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 413 (TC) 26 August 2010 This appeal concerned preliminary challenges by DSG Retail Ltd under article 8(1) and 8(3) of the Implementing Decision. The Tribunal decided those preliminary issues in favour of the Commissioners (Respondents). It ordered that costs be governed by the VAT and Duties Tribunals Rules 1986 by agreement under transitional powers and remitted the remaining issues for rehearing by a tribunal of the same constitution.

Express Food Supplies v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 466 (TC) 26 August 2010 Express Food Supplies appealed a Schedule 24 VAT penalty after a repayment claim of £21,660.82 was reduced to £1,082.23 when accounting errors were discovered. The Tribunal found the inaccuracies resulted from lack of reasonable care (temporary staff entering purchase invoices incorrectly and delayed sales postings), treated the behaviour as careless rather than deliberate, and upheld a 15% penalty (reduced from 30% for a prompted disclosure). The appeal was dismissed.

Greener Solutions Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 412 (TC) 26 August 2010 Greener Solutions appealed HMRC's refusal to repay £176,346.10 input VAT on a chain of trade in Nokia phones; HMRC conceded the wider chain involved MTIC fraud and that Greener's transaction was connected to it. The tribunal considered whether MBG/Mr Murray's knowledge should be attributed to Greener and whether Greener "ought to have known" of the fraud. Applying the Hampshire Land exception, the tribunal held MBG/Mr Murray's guilty knowledge was not attributable because his conduct was directed against and prejudicial to Greener. On the facts and applying the Kittel "ought to have known" test, HMRC failed to prove Greener should have known the transaction was connected with fraud, so the appeal was allowed.

Mitre Plastics v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 455 (TC) 26 August 2010 This appeal concerned whether an employee, Mr Darren Forster, was incapacitated by illness for 08–12 September 2008 and so entitled to Statutory Sick Pay (SSP). The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that he was not unfit for work when he left on 05 September and was unlikely to have been incapacitated during 08–12 September, and it allowed the employer’s appeal (no entitlement to SSP). HMRC had earlier paid a small sum following employer default, but the Tribunal held the employer not liable.

RMS Communications Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 411 (TC) 26 August 2010 This appeal concerned the tariff classification of a 3rd‑generation Apple iPod Nano capable of audio, photo and limited video playback. The tribunal held that, applying Note 3 to Section XVI and the GIRs, the Nano has a principal function and that function is audio, so it is classifiable under CN heading 8519. The appeal was allowed; the tribunal did not decide classifications for other Nano generations and reserved costs.

Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 410 (TC) 25 August 2010 This appeal concerns HMRC's refusal to allow input VAT on purchases by Global Telecoms Distribution plc (Global) of mobile phones in March 2006, where HMRC traced most purchases to known MTIC fraud defaulting traders. The First-tier Tribunal accepted that the upstream traders and factual chains to Global were established but found HMRC had not proved that Global or its MD actually knew, or should have known, the purchases were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion. The appeal was allowed and input tax restored, with costs to Global.

Century Builders Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 415 (TC) 23 August 2010 Century Builders Ltd appealed HMRC penalties totaling £300 for late monthly CIS returns for the period ended 5 April 2009, which were filed on 4 July 2009 instead of by 19 April 2009. The Tribunal found the company had no reasonable excuse for the delay given available HMRC guidance and prior direct advice, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the monthly penalties.

John Sillitoe v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 409 (TC) 23 August 2010 This appeal concerned fixed penalties of £1,200 for each of 2004–05 and 2005–06 imposed for failure to submit CIS36 end‑of‑year returns. The Tribunal found the appellant, a contractor with longstanding industry involvement, had no reasonable excuse for the whole periods of default and upheld both statutory penalties. The Tribunal rejected arguments based on hardship, genuine error, HMRC maladministration and ECHR disproportionality.

Bulkliner Intermodal Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 395 (TC) 20 August 2010 This appeal concerned an application by Bulkliner for costs after HMRC withdrew VAT assessments that had arisen from a fraud using the company's VAT number. The Tribunal found HMRC did not act unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings once the appeal was started and refused the costs application under rule 10 of the 2009 Rules. The Tribunal also held it could not award costs for conduct occurring before the proceedings commenced, although pre-appeal conduct might be relevant if it informed later behaviour. The Tribunal suggested the Appellant could complain to the Adjudicator about HMRC’s pre-appeal conduct.

CGI Group (Europe) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 396 (TC) 20 August 2010 This case concerned whether VAT applied to charges for outsourced IT services where staff costs were re-charged and the staff were contractually described as jointly employed by the supplier (CGI) and the client (Cox). The FTT found the employees were jointly employed but concluded that, on the facts, the arrangement was in substance a single supply of services by CGI as principal, so the whole charge was subject to VAT; CGI's contention that the staff element was a non-VAT re-charge failed. The Tribunal also rejected CGI's claim to a legitimate expectation that HMRC Guidance (Notice 700/34) made the staff re-charge a non-VAT disbursement and would have found no abuse had the analysis produced a separate re-charge.

DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 20 August 2010 DCM appealed HMRC's rejection of a floor-area based Partial Exemption Special Method (PESM) to apportion residual VAT inputs between taxable sales of frames and VAT-exempt medical/dispensing services. The Tribunal found the Standard Method produced an implausibly low recoverable fraction and, after viewings and evidence, gave provisional approval to a floor-area PESM but without the proposed 1.8m retail "zoning" uplift; it concluded dispensing is predominantly done at desks/consulting rooms, not in the front display zone. The Tribunal invited submissions on whether the zoning element is severable and reserved costs and final disposal.

Morrison Bowmore Distillers Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 394 (TC) 20 August 2010 This case concerned a retrospective VAT repayment claim of about £4,539.78–£4,539.87 for staff entertainment incurred in 1993–1997, submitted after House of Lords decisions permitted pre‑May 1997 claims. The Tribunal had to decide whether the appellant proved the expenditure and whether a 2007‑based extrapolation method to calculate recoverable input tax was acceptable given limited historic records. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant discharged the burden of proof, accepted the conservative extrapolation, and allowed repayment with interest; no costs were awarded.

Mr Martin West v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 443 (TC) 20 August 2010 This appeal concerned a 5% late payment surcharge for 2007/08 self-assessment tax. The tribunal found the appellant initiated an online payment on 27 February 2009 but HMRC did not receive funds until 2 March 2009, so the tax remained unpaid at the start of the 29th day after the due date; no reasonable excuse was established and the surcharge was confirmed. The appellant’s contention that initiation alone constituted payment was rejected and any minor imprecision in HMRC correspondence was held not to have misled him. The appeal was dismissed.

Mrs Lyn West v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 442 (TC) 20 August 2010 This appeal challenged a 5% surcharge for late payment of 2007/08 tax after an online payment instruction was made on 27 February 2009 but HMRC received funds on 2 March 2009. The tribunal found the tax remained unpaid for the relevant default period, rejected the argument that initiating the electronic transfer constituted payment, and confirmed the surcharge. The appellant did not establish a reasonable excuse and the appeal was dismissed.

Albion Taxis Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 389 (TC) 19 August 2010 This VAT appeal concerned whether Albion Taxis acted as principal or agent for cash (rank/street/telephone) taxi work. The Tribunal held that the Self Employed Drivers' Agreement and the actual working practices showed significant control by Albion (over fares, advertising, vehicle ownership, records and driver availability), so Albion was the principal for cash fares as well as account work. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's assessment upheld.

Anna Goralczyk v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 390 (TC) 19 August 2010 This case concerned whether the appellant’s employment with Industrial Temps Limited ended on 16 December 2007 or continued through paid holiday into the qualifying week (around 23–30 December 2007) for Statutory Maternity Pay. The tribunal preferred the appellant’s credible contemporaneous account and holiday arrangements and found the employer’s records inconsistent and unreliable. The appeal was allowed and the tribunal concluded the employment continued into the qualifying week, entitling the appellant to SMP.

Davina Batchelor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 392 (TC) 19 August 2010 This appeal by Miss Davina Batchelor challenged two HMRC surcharges for late payment of 2007–08 income tax. The Tribunal found she paid late because she lacked funds and was unemployed, but there was no evidence of any underlying cause for that insufficiency when the tax was due. Given the statutory exclusion of inability to pay as a reasonable excuse, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed both surcharges.

Glen Contract Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 391 (TC) 19 August 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of Glen Contract Services Ltd's CIS gross payment status for repeated late CIS/PAYE payments. The Tribunal found HMRC acted lawfully under the statutory provisions and Schedule 11 compliance test and dismissed Glen's appeal. The Tribunal also rejected Glen's claim of a "reasonable excuse" based on cash‑flow difficulties and prior informal forbearance.

Jason Allen v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 388 (TC) 19 August 2010 Mr Allen appealed HMRC's decision requiring payment of £500 to restore a Peugeot seized after it was found to contain red (rebated) diesel. The tribunal, hearing the case in Mr Allen's absence, found his claimed learning difficulties and mistake did not amount to a reasonable excuse for taking in and using red diesel and upheld the reviewer's decision to require payment. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

Stephen Ho v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 19 August 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC closure and discovery assessments raising Mr Ho's declared taxi takings for 2002–03 (tax year 2003–04) and related years. The Tribunal rejected HMRC's cash‑flow analysis and its higher assumed working pattern, accepted Mr Ho's evidence of about two Heathrow fares per working day, found two missing days' receipts were accidental (not negligent), allowed the 2003–04 appeal and quashed the related discovery assessments for other years. Directions were given about costs.

Masstech Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 386 (TC) 18 August 2010 This appeal concerned Masstech Ltd's claim to input VAT on a single 19 July 2006 sale of test strips that HMRC denied as connected to MTIC fraud. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that MassTech (and its director Mr Ahtamad) did not have actual knowledge of MTIC trading and that HMRC failed to prove MassTech “ought to have known” the transaction was connected to fraud. The appeal was allowed and input tax restored; MassTech was awarded its reasonable costs.

Ronald Michael Harris (as trustee of the Harris Family Charitable Trust) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 385 (TC) 18 August 2010 This case concerned whether legacies redirected by a deed of variation to a family charitable trust qualified as "qualifying donations" under s 25 Finance Act 1990, where the deed produced an inheritance tax (IHT) exemption. The Tribunal held that, for income tax purposes, the deed did not erase the fact that an IHT liability had arisen on death and was subsequently removed, and that removal of that liability was a benefit received by the donors in consequence of making the gifts. Because that benefit exceeded the statutory de minimis limits, the gifts were not qualifying donations and the appeal was dismissed.

Weight Watchers (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 384 (TC) 18 August 2010 Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd appealed four VAT assessments issued by HMRC as time-barred under VATA s73(6). The tribunal held that "the assessment" in s73(6)(b) refers to the actual assessments challenged, and that HMRC received evidence (the exact sales figures) shortly before each assessment which, in the officer's opinion, justified making those assessments. The appeals were dismissed.

British Eventing Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 382 (TC) 17 August 2010 This case concerns whether British Eventing Ltd (the assignor) could recover VAT paid on a reverse premium when HMRC refused an option to tax, and whether the Tribunal could consider related amendments. The Tribunal held the assignor did not make a taxable supply on assignment for £10, that the reverse premium was consideration for a taxable supply by the assignee (TEL), and that the VAT on the reverse premium was not attributable to the assignment but was an overhead recoverable by the Appellant under its partial‑exemption method. The Appellant could not pursue a s80 repayment claim because repayment rights belong to the person who paid or accounted for the output tax (TEL).

Ms Linda Cook v Director of Border Revenue [2010] UKFTT 381 (TC) 17 August 2010 Ms Cook appealed the Director of Border Revenue's refusal to restore tobacco seized at Gatwick on 12 July 2007. The Tribunal found she had not been given a realistic opportunity or notice to invoke statutory condemnation proceedings, that the goods were for her own use as personal gifts, and that the review officer's refusal to restore was unreasonable. The appeal was allowed and the non‑restoration decision quashed.

Wagerworks Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 383 (TC) 17 August 2010 The First-tier Tribunal held that WagerWorks provided a single composite supply of services to WWA for VAT purposes rather than multiple separate supplies. The Tribunal rejected the need to identify a dominant element or to characterise individual departmental services as principal or ancillary, finding the services were integrated and supplied as one package. The appeal on single vs multiple supply was dismissed; issues about the place of supply were left unresolved.

Simpson & Marwick v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 380 (TC) 16 August 2010 This case concerns whether a VAT-registered solicitor could claim bad debt relief under s36 VAT Act 1994 for the entire unpaid "VAT-only" amounts invoiced to insured clients, or only for the VAT fraction of the overall consideration. The First-tier Tribunal held there was a single taxable supply to the insured such that "consideration" comprised fees plus VAT, and relief under s36 is limited to the proportion of that consideration actually written off. The Tribunal rejected arguments based on legitimate expectation and Convention/property rights and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC's amended assessment of £216,862.36.

Adam Pelled v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 376 (TC) 12 August 2010 This appeal concerned a 5% late‑payment surcharge under s.59C(2) TMA 1970 for the year to 5 April 2008, imposed after the appellant failed to pay a balancing payment due 31 January 2009 until 16 November 2009. The appellant relied on erroneous advice from his tax adviser and an anticipated carry‑back of losses from 2008–09 as excuses for late payment. The First‑tier Tribunal held there was no “reasonable excuse” throughout the period of default, confirmed the £6,673.59 surcharge, and noted carry‑back relief claimed later did not undo the earlier surcharge.

Crane Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 378 (TC) 12 August 2010 Crane Ltd was charged a statutory default surcharge (2%) after paying a VAT instalment one day late; it admitted the late payment but argued a reasonable excuse and that the surcharge was disproportionate. The tribunal held that forgetting to instruct payment (an administrative oversight) and reliance on another’s dilatoriness do not constitute a reasonable excuse under s.71 VATA, and that it had no power to reduce the statutory rate; the 2% surcharge was not disproportionate. The appeal was dismissed and the ~£5,000 surcharge upheld, with permission-to-appeal time extended pending a related Upper Tribunal decision.

Total People Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 379 (TC) 12 August 2010 Total People Ltd appealed for repayment of overpaid employer National Insurance Contributions for 2002/03–2005/06, arising from annual lump-sum car allowances paid alongside low per‑mile rates. The tribunal had to decide whether those lump sums were "earnings" (taxable) or "relevant motoring expenditure" under Regulation 22A and thus partially offset by the qualifying amount. The tribunal concluded the lump sums were motoring expenditure, not earnings, and allowed the appeal (subject to the qualifying amount offset).

Lighthouse Technologies Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 374 (TC) 11 August 2010 Lighthouse Technologies applied for permission to appeal out of time against HMRC’s 22 January 2008 VAT assessment denying input tax recovery. The Tribunal found the company gave no good explanation for the lengthy delay (its inability to afford legal fees and awaiting other cases being insufficient) and that HMRC would be prejudiced if the late appeal were allowed. Permission to appeal out of time was refused.

Mr T Wright Mr V A Whittle Mr I G Kenrick (deceased) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 373 (TC) 11 August 2010 The case concerned whether the semi-submersible tender rig West Menang qualified as a "ship" for purposes of the Foreign Earnings Deduction. HMRC accepted the employees met the deduction conditions except that their employment had to be "on a ship"; the Tribunal found the West Menang was an "offshore installation" used for exploring/exploiting mineral resources by means of a well and therefore was not a ship. The appellants' appeal was dismissed.

Randbee Leisure Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 375 (TC) 11 August 2010 This appeal concerned a s.73 VATA 1994 assessment by HMRC of c. £13,508 for VAT periods Oct 2003–Mar 2006, based on a mark‑up exercise using supplier invoices and price information obtained on inspection. The appellant, a wine bar company, challenged HMRC’s choice of price basis and sought to rely on later-supplied lower historical price lists and asserted losses, but provided no contemporaneous records to substantiate those figures. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC’s assumptions reasonable given the inconsistent and incomplete records, accepted the assessment and dismissed the appeal.

Mr Stuart Griffiths v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 371 (TC) 10 August 2010 Mr Griffiths appealed HMRC’s automatic 5% late-payment surcharges totalling £435.75 for the 2005–06 tax year. The Tribunal found he filed and paid late and that his explanations — not knowing he needed to file and complaints about PAYE coding — did not amount to a "reasonable excuse." The appeal was dismissed and both surcharges were upheld.

Mrs Carol A Spencer v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 370 (TC) 10 August 2010 Mrs Carol A Spencer appealed against HMRC's recovery of £9,415.51, challenging amounts already determined by the General Commissioners. The First-tier Tribunal held that the matters she sought to dispute had been previously determined, that her appeal was considerably out of time, and that she produced no adequate evidence of prior payment or arguable grounds to reopen the determinations. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal and noted her right to apply for permission to appeal.

Professional Search Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 372 (TC) 10 August 2010 This appeal challenged default VAT surcharges for three 2009 periods after returns and payments were late. The Tribunal found the statutory defaults under s.59 VATA 1994 applied, rejected the appellant's claimed reasonable excuses (including insufficiency of funds and non-receipt of notices), and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessed surcharges. Permission to appeal information was noted.

Terry Harrison v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 369 (TC) 9 August 2010 Mr Harrison appealed against a 5% initial surcharge of £6,638.96 for late payment of income tax for the year to 5 April 2008, arguing that reliance on a third‑party tax scheme and subsequent inability to pay amounted to a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal found he had signed an SA303 reducing payments on account and filed the return, so he was aware of the anticipated liability, and that his continued reliance on the failed scheme and failure to monitor or pay did not constitute a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge upheld.

Winston Osborne v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 368 (TC) 9 August 2010 This appeal concerned whether the portion of a mason's Lodge subscription remitted to the Masonic Grand Charity qualified as a “gift made by an individual” for Gift Aid. Rule 271 required Lodges to pay per‑member contributions to the Grand Charity, and the Tribunal found those payments were compulsory to retain Lodge membership. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding the Grand Charity element was not an individual gift and so did not qualify for Gift Aid.

Benson Country Pine v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 365 (TC) 6 August 2010 This appeal concerned whether the partnership had a reasonable excuse for VAT defaults arising while the managing partner was ill and what adjustments should be made to the default surcharge schedule. The Tribunal found the managing partner's severe ill‑health provided a reasonable excuse up to and including the 03/03 period but not thereafter (except 09/03), cancelled surcharges for periods from 03/02 to 03/03, and amended the surcharge schedule as directed. The hearing proceeded in the appellant’s absence after notice and contact attempts.

John Scofield v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 6 August 2010 This appeal concerns HMRC's cancellation of the appellant's Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) gross payment status after a compliance review which left one relevant failure: a late self-assessment payment paid after the 28‑day statutory disregard. The Tribunal held the appellant did not have a "reasonable excuse" under para 4(4) Sch 11 Finance Act 2004 for the late payment and therefore that failure stood, but it did not decide whether s.66(1) Finance Act 2004 confers a discretion on HMRC to cancel gross status or the extent to which the Tribunal can review any such discretionary determination; the hearing was adjourned for further argument on those legal questions.

Mobile Export 365 Ltd and Shelford (IT) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 367 (TC) 6 August 2010 This appeal concerned repayment of input VAT claimed by two Axxia group subsidiaries for March–April 2006, which HMRC refused on the basis the goods had been used in MTIC-style fraud. The First-tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that there was a tax loss in each challenged supply chain, that the losses were connected to fraud, and that the appellants knew or ought to have known of that fraud, so their input tax claims were denied. The tribunal treated the Axxia companies as a single business for attributing knowledge and relied in part on IMEI/NEMESIS evidence, patterns of low mark-ups, limited due diligence and witness evidence to reach its conclusions. All appeals were dismissed.

UBS AG v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 366 (TC) 6 August 2010 UBS operated a Jersey SPV scheme into which employee bonuses were paid to acquire non‑voting shares (NVS) with limited restrictions and hedging. The tribunal held that a small number of employees with enforceable contractual guarantees had earned their bonuses before diversion into the Scheme (taxable as earnings), and that the NVS were not "restricted securities" under Chapter 2 of Part 7 ITEPA on the facts, so Chapter 2 charge did not apply. UBS was not found to control the SPV and the Scheme was not a sham. The appeal was dismissed overall.

William Ashworth and Catherine Connor v United Kingdom Border Agency [2010] UKFTT 364 (TC) 6 August 2010 Ashworth and Connor appealed against a decision refusing restoration of tobacco and cigarettes seized as suspected imports and against the terms on which Mr Ashworth's car was restored. The tribunal held it could not re-open the question of "own use" because the appellants had abandoned their challenge in the magistrates' court, and it found the reviewer's decision to refuse restoration of the tobacco/cigarettes and to restore the vehicle only on payment (of duty or its value) to be reasonable. The appeal was dismissed.

A C Tours v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 363 (TC) 5 August 2010 A C Tours appealed HMRC's view that its sales of UK hotel accommodation and tours to foreign tour operators were taxable in the UK. The Tribunal found the provision of promotional and detailed information to clients was ancillary to the principal supply of tours/accommodation, not a separate taxable supply, and therefore the supplies were made in the UK and liable to VAT. The appeal was dismissed.

Fisher Homes & Vision Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 361 (TC) 4 August 2010 Fisher Homes & Vision Ltd appealed a default surcharge for unpaid VAT for period 10/09. The Tribunal found the company had no reasonable excuse for failing to pay and that a "time to pay" request made after the payment was due could not prevent further default surcharge liability. The appeal was dismissed; the appellant may apply to set aside the decision and seek permission to appeal.

Graham Lyons and Anthony Lyons v United Kingdom Border Agency [2010] UKFTT 362 (TC) 4 August 2010 Graham and Anthony Lyons had cigarettes and hand-rolling tobacco seized at Liverpool Airport; restoration requests were refused and the appellants withdrew from magistrates' condemnation proceedings, which resulted in condemnation. The First-tier Tribunal held it must assume the correctness of the magistrates' determination that the goods were lawfully seized for resale, found no exceptional circumstances to reopen that issue (fear of adverse costs did not qualify), and dismissed the appeal. The reviewers' decisions were held to be decisions the respondent could reasonably reach. Permission to apply to the Upper Tribunal was noted as subject to the usual time limit.

Mr Paul Favell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 360 (TC) 4 August 2010 Mr Paul Favell appealed HMRC’s refusal to allow principal private residence and lettings relief for 90 Washington Road, claiming he lived there in 2001. The FTT found he failed to discharge the burden of proof because there was a complete absence of contemporaneous objective documentary evidence and available third‑party records pointed away from his claim. The Tribunal therefore rejected his claim and upheld the CGT assessment. It did not decide whether any short periods of occupation would have amounted to residence.

'M' v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 356 (TC) 30 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether a transsexual appellant should have been treated as a woman for pensionable‑age and Class 1 NIC purposes from June 2004 (or surgery in Dec 2005) or only from issuance of a full Gender Recognition Certificate (GRC) in December 2006. The Tribunal held that, as a matter of statutory interpretation and having regard to precedent, the relevant pensions and NICs legislation read with the Gender Recognition Act 2004 meant her acquired gender was recognised for these purposes only from issue of the full GRC, so she remained liable to pay NICs until then. The claim for earlier cessation of liability was dismissed.

Ali Kia Jahansouz v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 30 July 2010 This case concerns Mr Jahansouz's appeal against HMRC refusal of a £10,107.01 VAT refund under the DIY builders' scheme for works at 37A Bridge Road that created a new flat (37B) in the roof space. The tribunal found that Flat 37B has a separate entrance and is capable of independent occupation, that the works objectively enlarged the building (raising it from two to three storeys, increasing height and volume and rebuilding the roof) and thus constituted an enlargement creating an additional dwelling under Note 16(b). The appeal was allowed and the refund awarded.

M R Harris Groundworks (A Partnership) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 358 (TC) 30 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether M R Harris Groundworks satisfied the TMA compliance test for CIS gross payment status after two late CIS deduction payments in Aug–Sep 2008. The First‑tier Tribunal found the partnership had a reasonable excuse under s.118(2) TMA because it reasonably relied on a long‑serving general manager who had day‑to‑day financial control, and the partnership took prompt remedial steps once the defaults were discovered. The appeal was allowed and gross payment status was effectively reinstated.

Martin Stone v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 414 (TC) 30 July 2010 This appeal concerned penalties assessed against Mr Stone for failing to file monthly CIS returns from May 2007 to October 2009. The Tribunal found Mr Stone suffered serious chronic illness and that HMRC did not send the required monthly CIS return forms; taken together these facts amounted to a reasonable excuse for non‑filing. The appeal was allowed and the penalties (total £31,800) were quashed.

Nabiltech UK Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 357 (TC) 30 July 2010 This case concerned a VAT assessment for the period 08/06 made by HMRC after finding Nabiltech's business records inadequate and bank deposits exceeding declared takings. The tribunal concluded HMRC officer Mr Evans had relied on relevant business records and bank information, acted honestly and bona fide in estimating takings (using extrapolation from available weeks and October 2006 receipts), and that the final net tax assessment of £7,337.61 was reasonable. The appellant's challenge to the methodology and suggestions of third‑party card use were rejected and the appeal dismissed.

Ravenfield Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 359 (TC) 30 July 2010 Ravenfield Limited appealed HMRC's refusal to allow input VAT of £21,214.91 on a Bentley GT Continental used in its hire business. The First-tier Tribunal, proceeding in Ravenfield's absence, found the documentary evidence insufficient to prove the car was acquired and used exclusively or primarily for taxable business purposes under article 7 of the VAT (Input Tax) Order 1992. The appeal was dismissed and the input tax credit denied.

Mr Jeffrey Sasin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 354 (TC) 29 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether an employer (Mr Sasin) should have been given a regulation 72(5) direction relieving it from PAYE under-deductions for 2004/05–2007/08 in respect of an employee whose P45 showed code suffix H. The Tribunal found the employer had received annual employer notices (P7X/P9X) saying suffix H was no longer valid and that employers should contact HMRC if H was being carried forward, yet the employer did not contact HMRC. The Tribunal held the employer had not taken reasonable care under regulation 72(3)(a) and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC’s refusal to issue the direction.

Opal Carleton Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 353 (TC) 29 July 2010 Opal Carleton converted shared student rooms at Tufnell Park Halls into 145 self‑contained studio units and sought the 5% reduced VAT for a "changed number of dwellings conversion". The First‑tier Tribunal held the works did not qualify because, despite physical changes, the accommodation continued to serve a relevant residential purpose (student halls) and lease/planning restrictions prevented separate use or disposal. The appeal was dismissed and standard‑rate VAT applied.

Gary David Donaldson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 319 (TC) 27 July 2010 This appeal concerned VAT assessments disallowing input tax on fuel purchases where the appellant produced invoices purporting to show VAT-paid purchases from several Northern Ireland suppliers. The tribunal found the invoices were not genuine records of purchases from the named suppliers, that the appellant knew the invoices were false, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessments.

Han Ali Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 351 (TC) 27 July 2010 This appeal concerned Han Ali Ltd's claim to recover input VAT of about £62,535 for the quarter to 31 March 2007, which HMRC refused on the ground the purchase formed part of a VAT fraud. The tribunal found a chain of linked transactions involving missing traders (Texvale and Bee‑Zee), concluded Texvale deliberately evaded VAT, and that the company's director, Mr Patel, was a knowing participant in a pre‑arranged scheme. The appeal was dismissed and costs were ordered against the appellant.

Inayat Gulamhussain v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 350 (TC) 27 July 2010 This case concerned an appellant’s challenge to an HMRC assessment denying £72,225 VAT input tax claimed on invoices. The First-tier Tribunal found, on HMRC evidence and missing supplier/payment corroboration, that the invoices were not genuine and did not originate from the named traders, and dismissed the appeal. The appellant’s repeated non-compliance with directions and failure to attend the final hearing weighed against him. Costs of £200 were awarded to HMRC.

Mr Graham Gouldson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 349 (TC) 27 July 2010 Mr Gouldson appealed HMRC closure notice and discovery assessments denying parts of his Seafarers’ Earnings Deduction for 2004/05–2006/07 in respect of service on the vessel Edda Fjord. The Tribunal held that during periods when temporary accommodation units were fitted the vessel was used “mainly for the provision of accommodation” and therefore fell within the statutory definition of an “offshore installation,” so SED was not payable for those periods; it also held HMRC validly made discovery assessments under TMA s.29. The appeal was dismissed.

Mr Ian Campbell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 352 (TC) 27 July 2010 Mr Ian Campbell appealed against a 5% late payment surcharge imposed by HMRC for unpaid 2007–08 income tax. The tribunal found the balancing payment of £40,059.87 remained unpaid beyond the 28‑day surcharge period and rejected the appellant’s claim of posting a cheque as unsupported. The appeal was dismissed and the 5% surcharge (about £2,002.29) was upheld.

Tipple Inns Crammond Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 348 (TC) 27 July 2010 The Tribunal considered HMRC's Notice requiring Tipple Inns Crammond Ltd to provide VAT security based on links between its directors and other VAT-registered businesses that had accrued large VAT debts or become insolvent. HMRC assessed the directors' involvement and commonalities between the companies (addresses, appointments) and concluded the appellant was a risk; the Tribunal found that conclusion reasonable. The appeal was dismissed and the security requirement remained in force.

C P G Logistics Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 345 (TC) 23 July 2010 CPG Logistics appealed HMRC's refusal of VAT bad debt relief after it entered a Compromise Agreement with Ty Europe in administration, receiving £600,000 cash and a conveyor valued at £400,000 against trading arrears and an unamortised IAA balance. The Tribunal held the Compromise Agreement was a global settlement of all claims, treated the total receipt as £1,000,000 and apportioned that sum pro rata between the taxable trading arrears and the unamortised IAA balance, allowing CPG's bad debt claim and awarding costs to CPG.

G E International Inc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 343 (TC) 23 July 2010 This appeal arose from a Binding Tariff Information (BTI) decision by HMRC which HMRC subsequently withdrew and invited the Tribunal to allow the appeal. The Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to determine classification on a "mere reference" once the contested decision had been withdrawn, and therefore allowed the appeal on HMRC's invitation. Allowance of the appeal quashed the original BTI and, viewed as a whole, substituted the classification sought in GE's notice of appeal; HMRC later issued a replacement BTI satisfactory to the appellant.

Globalbis Distribution Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 557 (TC) 23 July 2010 The Tribunal excluded a lengthy generic witness statement of HMRC's Roderick Guy Stone and refused leave for a later replacement in an appeal about denial of about £2 million input tax alleged to involve MTIC fraud. The Tribunal held the statements were not directed to the appellant's specific transactions, contained legal/opinion material presented as fact, had limited probative value and would be prejudicial and disproportionate in time and cost. Directions were given enforcing strict case management and limiting late, generic evidence.

Julian Frost v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 344 (TC) 23 July 2010 This appeal concerned a DIY Scheme VAT refund claim by Mr Julian Frost for VAT allegedly overcharged at 17.5% instead of the reduced 5% on supplies for converting a barn to a dwelling. HMRC accepted and refunded part of the claim but refused £6,418.11 because suppliers were time-barred from reclaiming the excess under the three‑year statutory limit. The Tribunal held HMRC could only refund the VAT due under the statutory scheme and dismissed the appeal, finding reliance on an out‑of‑date HMRC notice or estoppel did not oblige HMRC to pay the disputed amount.

K1 Construction Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 347 (TC) 23 July 2010 K1 Construction, a contractor with gross payment status under the CIS, appealed HMRC's cancellation of that status for the 12 months to 26 March 2009 on the basis that the compliance test had not been met. The Tribunal held that late filing/payments corrected only after the qualifying period could not be disregarded, that K1 had no reasonable excuse for the defaults, and that K1 failed the "reason to expect" test. K1's appeal was dismissed and the cancellation upheld.

Paul Goldberg v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 346 (TC) 23 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether a £76,872 payment to Mr Goldberg was contractual pay in lieu of notice (taxable as earnings) or compensation for breach of contract (potentially tax‑exempt). The Tribunal accepted a February 1 letter as reflecting Mr Goldberg’s contract and held the payment was pay in lieu of notice and therefore taxable; the appeal against HMRC’s amendment was dismissed. HMRC failed to prove negligence in Mr Goldberg’s self‑assessment, so the penalty was not imposed.

David C Pledger v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 342 (TC) 22 July 2010 This appeal concerned multiple HMRC decisions (NIC, PAYE, compulsory VAT registration, VAT assessments, various penalties, and an income tax determination) where the appellant's notice was largely out of time and deficient. The Tribunal struck out parts that were unappealable or beyond its jurisdiction (VAT assessments and the income tax determination/surcharges) and refused permission to admit some late appeals (NIC, PAYE and late self-assessment penalties) for delay and non‑cooperation. HMRC conceded permission for the late appeal against the VAT registration decision, and appeals on certain penalties were admitted subject to the appellant producing specified documents within 28 days; the remaining admitted matters were directed to proceed.

Aleris Recycling (Swansea) Limitwed v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 341 (TC) 16 July 2010 Aleris Recycling (Swansea) Limitwed appealed HMRC's VAT assessment of 7 July 2007 and default interest, arguing the assessment became invalid once export/removal evidence was later produced and that the interest was disproportionate. The First-tier Tribunal held the assessment and interest valid and proportionate, finding UK time limits and post-deadline adjustments compatible with the Sixth Directive and preserving fiscal neutrality. The appeal was dismissed and no reference to the Court of Justice was required.

Elizabeth Diane Yelland v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 340 (TC) 15 July 2010 This appeal concerned Mrs Yelland’s claim for repayment of an estimated VAT assessment of £4,643 issued 12 March 2004 and whether the claim fell within the three-year time limit in s.80 VATA. The Tribunal held the relevant date for the s.80 limitation was the end of the prescribed accounting period (30 April 2004), so the three-year period expired on 30 April 2008 and the nil return filed on 24 November 2008 was out of time. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC awarded costs.

Masterlease Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 339 (TC) 15 July 2010 Masterlease claimed regulation 38 VAT repayments for hire-purchase supplies; HMRC sought to offset alleged underdeclared VAT on resale of repossessed cars, arguing the cars were not sold in the "same condition" under the Cars Order. The Tribunal held in principle that HMRC could take such liabilities into account when assessing the repayment claim and that "same condition" means substantially/materially the same, allowing only a limited de minimis allowance for trivial work; the matter was adjourned for quantification of any offset.

Colin Watts v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 574 (TC) 14 July 2010 This case concerned Mr Colin Watts' attempt to bring a late claim for trading losses arising from a property development partnership active in the late 1980s/early 1990s and whether any other grounds of appeal remained after earlier General Commissioners' decisions. The First-tier Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to review HMRC's exercise of care-and-management discretion in refusing to admit the late loss claim and, on the merits, doubted that any arguable loss would assist the Appellant. The Tribunal therefore declined to admit the late claim and found no other grounds of appeal within its jurisdiction.

David Thomas Patmore v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 334 (TC) 14 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether dividends paid to Mrs Patmore were income arising under a settlement attributable to Mr Patmore for the purposes of s660 ICTA. The Tribunal found Mrs Patmore had a constructive trust over a substantial proportion of the shares (giving her a 42.5% beneficial entitlement) so only dividends in excess of that beneficial share amounted to a settlement caught by s660; the assessments were adjusted accordingly. The outright‑gift exception did not exclude the relevant income.

Marcus Bamberg v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 333 (TC) 14 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether repayments of loan stock constituted tax-free consideration under s 703/704 Taxes Act 1988 Circumstance D after intercompany loans and a hive-down from the appellant to a Guernsey subsidiary. The tribunal held that repayments tracing back to distributable assets of the appellant at the hive-down fell within Circumstance D, but profits generated by the subsidiary after the hive-down did not. The appeal was dismissed insofar as repayments derived from the appellant's distributable reserves at the hive-down and allowed insofar as they derived from post-hive-down profits.

Mercedes-Benz Financial Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 332 (TC) 14 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether the ECJ decision in Nordania required HMRC to include disposals of leased cars in an HMRC‑approved partial exemption special method that expressly excluded such disposals. The Tribunal held that Nordania meant such disposals would not be "capital goods" under Article 19 of the Sixth Directive, but because the UK applied Article 17(5) by domestic regulation (regulations 101/102) an ECJ finding under Article 19 did not automatically invalidate an HMRC‑approved special method. The approved method lawfully remained binding until varied or terminated by the statutory procedure, and the appeal was dismissed.

Raptor Commerce Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 335 (TC) 14 July 2010 Raptor sought a VAT repayment supplement after HMRC delayed payment of its 02/06 repayment; HMRC said periods during which it was making or answering enquiries could be excluded from the 30-day repayment-supplement clock. The Tribunal held that an "inquiry" for these purposes requires questions put to the taxpayer (not merely internal investigation), found HMRC had properly excluded 11–21 April 2006, but that the net period still exceeded 30 days so the repayment supplement was payable. The appeal was allowed.

Yum Yum Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 331 (TC) 14 July 2010 Yum Yum Ltd provided a company-owned Jaguar to its sole director, kept overnight at his home and used for business; HMRC assessed Class 1A NICs for car and fuel. The tribunal found the car was likely available for private use, and that the s.167 ITEPA "pool car" conditions were not met because the car was not shown to be used by more than one employee and the employer did not "occupy" the director's home. The appeal was dismissed and the Class 1A NICs liability upheld.

Belton Estates Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 330 (TC) 13 July 2010 Belton Estates PLC appealed to recover £63,000 of input VAT charged by Purearth PLC for planning-related services on land owned by Halldale Properties Ltd, in which Belton held a 50% interest. The Tribunal found Belton failed to prove it had received a supply from Purearth that was directly linked to a taxable supply Belton made or intended to make, and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also noted there was insufficient evidence that Purearth had been paid or had accounted for output tax, and that a late-produced Halldale board minute did not discharge Belton’s burden of proof.

Orchid Properties (a partnership) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 329 (TC) 13 July 2010 Orchid Properties appealed a closure notice treating proceeds from a 1996 purchase and 2002 sale as trading income and denying capital gains. The partnership sought to strike out HMRC's alternative contention that business asset taper relief should be restricted; the tribunal refused the strike-out, holding the alternative arose from the subject matter of the enquiry and did not amount to unfair ambush. The case was remitted for further directions, with no costs order.

Autocarriers Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 328 (TC) 12 July 2010 The tribunal considered HMRC's requirement that Autocarriers provide a cash security for future VAT under para 4(2) Sch 11, imposed after a history of VAT defaults by the company, its directors and related group companies following insolvencies. The issue was whether the requirement was necessary to protect the revenue and whether the decision-maker acted unreasonably in issuing the notice without prior warning. The tribunal held the decision was within the range of reasonable discretion and dismissed the appeal, upholding the security requirement.

Brian Lewis v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 327 (TC) 9 July 2010 This appeal concerned 141 penalties imposed on Mr Brian Lewis for late monthly CIS returns for the period May 2007–April 2008; 133 returns were found to attract penalties under s98 TMA. The Tribunal rejected Mr Lewis's claimed reasonable excuses (lack of subcontractor tax references, workload, stress) and held fixed monthly penalties could not be reduced, but it exercised discretion to reduce the longer-term (post-12-month) discretionary penalties in aggregate, resulting in a substituted total penalty of £13,300. The appeal was dismissed in respect of fixed penalties and upheld only to the extent of moderating the post-12-month penalties.

National House Building Council v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 326 (TC) 9 July 2010 This case concerned whether VAT on remedial building work arranged by NHBC under its Buildmark section 2 warranty was deductible input tax or was attributable to NHBC's exempt insurance supplies. The Tribunal found NHBC becomes "on risk" when a registered builder defaults and that remedial work NHBC arranges is to discharge its insurance obligation as principal, not to procure taxable supplies for the builder. Accordingly the VAT charged by third-party builders was not deductible by NHBC and the appeal was dismissed.

Bellwell Plant Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 8 July 2010 Bellwell Plant appealed HMRC's refusal to grant gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme, which was refused for three alleged compliance failures: a late CT600 return, late corporation tax due 1 Dec 2007, and late monthly PAYE/CIS payments. The Tribunal accepted that the CT600 had been posted on time and excused that failure, found no reasonable excuse for non-payment of corporation tax (rejecting reliance on a prospective CIS offset), and found no breach as to monthly PAYE/CIS payments because carried-forward deductions exceeded liabilities; the appeal was dismissed.

Eurotec Services and Eurotec Services (GB) LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 321 (TC) 8 July 2010 This case concerned consolidated appeals by Eurotec Services and Eurotec Services (GB) LLP against HMRC decisions to cancel or refuse gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme. The Tribunal found the partners were non‑compliant with Schedule 11 FA 2004/TMA 1970 during the 12‑month qualifying period and dismissed the appeals, rejecting reliance on MFI’s collapse or cashflow problems as a “reasonable excuse.” The Tribunal accepted solely that an accountant’s error excused a late appeal against HMRC’s refusal but held that did not excuse earlier tax non‑compliance.

Mr David Gradel v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 325 (TC) 8 July 2010 This case concerns Mr David Gradel's appeal seeking postponement of tax assessed by HMRC amendments to his 2006 and 2008 self‑assessment returns, arising from large payments HMRC treated as employment income. The First‑tier Tribunal found Mr Gradel had a very poor compliance history, that his offered undertaking was legally unenforceable and insufficient to protect HMRC, and dismissed the postponement request. The disputed liabilities therefore remained payable pending determination of the income classification.

Mr KY Sinh Voong v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 317 (TC) 8 July 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's enquiries into understated takings at Mr Voong's Golden Dragon takeaway, HMRC's use of business economics exercises (BEEs) and bank records to estimate undisclosed turnover, and the validity of discovery assessments. The Tribunal found HMRC's adjusted figures were reached on a reasonable basis, that Mr Voong failed to discharge the burden of proof under s 50 TMA, and that discovery assessments were valid because his conduct amounted to neglect; the racism allegation was rejected and all appeals were dismissed.

Mr Martin Currier v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 322 (TC) 8 July 2010 Mr Currier appealed penalties imposed for late submission of employer returns (P35 without accompanying P14). The tribunal found he did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to include the P14 and dismissed his appeal, upholding two statutory £100 penalties. The tribunal also rejected the argument that HMRC’s delay in returning an incomplete P35 excused the late filing. The penalties stood and the decision noted routes for set-aside or appeal permission.

Neil Clarke v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 8 July 2010 This appeal concerned a 5% HMRC surcharge for late payment of a 2006–07 income tax assessment. The appellant said he had spent sale proceeds, relied on accountants and lacked funds; HMRC and the Tribunal found no "reasonable excuse" covering the whole default period. The Tribunal upheld the surcharge and dismissed the appeal.

Thimbleby Farms Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 320 (TC) 8 July 2010 Thimbleby Farms supplied private game shoots to its sole director, Mr Shelley, without charging VAT; HMRC assessed VAT at commercial rates and imposed misdeclaration penalties. The First-tier Tribunal found the shoots were supplies made for consideration because of a direct contractual link between the shoots and services provided by Mr Shelley, but determined the subjective value agreed between the parties was £1,000 per shoot (VAT exclusive), reducing the taxable base; penalties were upheld with HMRC’s 70% mitigation being appropriate. The assessment and penalty were adjusted and the appeal was allowed in part.

Earthshine Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 314 (TC) 7 July 2010 This interim decision addresses Earthshine's costs claim arising from HMRC's late disclosure and application to admit late evidence. The Tribunal held HMRC must pay costs that were inevitably caused by their late admission of evidence, but refused indemnity costs and declined to order Earthshine's costs of HMRC's (successful) application to admit that evidence. An interim payment of £5,000 was ordered and the remaining consequential costs were remitted to a costs judge, with certain heads reserved for later determination.

Alexandra Luther Hammill (as representative partner for The Potting Shed v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 6 July 2010 This appeal concerned fixed late-filing penalties under s 93A TMA for a partnership tax return said to be due by 31 January 2009 but not received until 26 August 2009. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that a notice to file had been issued in April 2008 and that while there was short-term confusion from misdirected UTR correspondence and HMRC telephone handling in January 2009, the appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for the whole period of default. The appeal was dismissed and both £100 penalties were confirmed.

B Fairall Limited (in Liquidation) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 6 July 2010 This case concerned an application for permission to bring a VAT appeal out of time against HMRC in respect of a 2007 assessment and penalties, where the appeal was only lodged in December 2009. The tribunal found the appellant had reasonably (but mistakenly) believed a valid appeal had already been made, that the delay was caused by the appellant's long-standing accountant rather than deliberate inaction, and that there was a prima facie case; balancing prejudice to HMRC against injustice to the appellant, permission to appeal out of time was granted and further case management directions issued.

Best Buys Supplies Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 304 (TC) 6 July 2010 Best Buys Supplies Ltd appealed HMRC’s assessment disallowing input VAT of £110,324 claimed on invoices from Samson, a supplier who had been VAT-deregistered. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the supplies occurred and that HMRC unreasonably failed to carry out the promised reconsideration, but concluded that a proper central review applying HMRC’s 2003 Statement of Practice and Appendix 2 criteria would nevertheless have produced the same result. The appeal was dismissed and no costs order was made at that stage.

Christopher Ryan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 309 (TC) 6 July 2010 This appeal concerned a fixed penalty under Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 2003 for late submission of a land transaction return. The appellant filed the return two years late, claimed ignorance and reliance on others (HMRC or solicitors) as a "reasonable excuse" under s 97(2) FA 2003, and also cited business failure. The First-tier Tribunal rejected those arguments, holding there was no reasonable excuse or justifiable reliance on third parties, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty.

Crazy Farm Golf Course Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 307 (TC) 6 July 2010 This appeal concerned Crazy Farm Golf Course Ltd’s challenge to HMRC’s refusal to backdate its VAT registration from 1 December 2008 to 1 September 2008 and to allow recovery of £11,622 input tax on invoices dated March–May 2008. The Tribunal found HMRC’s refusal to amend the effective date was reasonable and that the invoices related to a single supply of construction services with materials ancillary, so the pre‑registration input tax fell outside the six‑month recovery period and was disallowed. The appeal was dismissed in full.

Eames Consulting LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 308 (TC) 6 July 2010 Eames Consulting LLP appealed a £100 automatic penalty for late filing of its 2007/08 partnership return. HMRC records showed the return was received in late August 2009 and the appellant produced no reliable evidence of timely posting or earlier filing. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellant had not proven on the balance of probabilities that the return was filed by 31 October 2008 and had no reasonable excuse, and it dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty.

H J Ashenford v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 311 (TC) 6 July 2010 This appeal challenged a £400 fixed penalty for failure to file P35 returns. The Tribunal found the notice bore the name of an HMRC officer who had retired before the notice was issued and HMRC could not show any other authorised officer had determined the penalty. The appeal was allowed and the penalty quashed; the Tribunal did not decide the reasonable excuse point.

Mrs Margaret Raha v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 303 (TC) 6 July 2010 Mrs Raha sold a flat in 2006 and claimed post‑vacation outgoings (council tax, service charges, insurance, utilities, furniture clearance) and adviser fees as deductible costs against a capital gain. The Tribunal held those post‑vacation expenses were excluded by s 39(1) TCGA 1992 (because they would be allowable for income tax purposes, even where no income arose) and were not allowable under s 38(1)(b) because they did not produce any identifiable change in the state or nature of the asset. Adviser fees were disallowed as relating to tax advice and dispute with HMRC rather than costs of disposal. The appeal was dismissed.

Philip Duke v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 306 (TC) 6 July 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's amendment of Mr Duke's 1998/1999 self‑assessment after rejecting claimed Castle Trust losses and the related question whether HMRC were time‑barred because they had not opened an enquiry into the trustees' return. The Tribunal held that where s.77 TCGA 1992 applies (the settlor has an interest) trust gains are treated as accruing to the settlor and the self‑assessment/enquiry procedures apply to the settlor; the trustees' return is administrative/informational and does not prevent HMRC enquiring into or amending the settlor's return. The appeal was dismissed and the amended assessment increasing tax was upheld.

Williamson Tea Holdings Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 301 (TC) 6 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether a £3,768,038 payment under a non‑competition agreement (NCA) paid on the sale of the appellant’s holding in Borelli should be taxed as capital consideration for disposal of goodwill or treated as part of the share sale proceeds and exempt under the Substantial Shareholdings Exemption. The Tribunal found the parties had negotiated a single value by reference to production (Rs per kg), that the NCA was a commercial device to enable the purchaser to satisfy Indian takeover rules, and there was no cogent evidence that goodwill was separately identified, valued or disposed of. The Tribunal cancelled HMRC’s amended assessment and allowed the appeal.

Linda Alice McLaggan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 300 (TC) 5 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mrs McLaggan made a post‑1975 election to pay the married woman's reduced rate of National Insurance after her remarriage. The First‑tier Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that an election was made between 6 April 1976 and 5 April 1977 and that it remained in force until 5 April 1988, so reduced‑rate contributions applied for that period. The appeal was dismissed.

Dr Wolfgang Reiter v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 299 (TC) 2 July 2010 This appeal concerned a locum consultant who claimed travel and private accommodation expenses for work at Eastbourne General District Hospital in 2003/04; HMRC amended his return disallowing those amounts and issued a Closure Notice. The Tribunal found the hospital was his permanent workplace so travel was ordinary commuting and disallowed the travel expenses, and held that private accommodation costs were not incurred wholly, exclusively and necessarily for employment despite some standby duties. The appeal was dismissed and the Closure Notice amendment of £2,255.23 was confirmed.

Mr M Manders v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 313 (TC) 2 July 2010 Mr Manders appealed HMRC's disallowance of motor expenses for 2006–07 in respect of operating a catering trailer. The Tribunal found his base of trading was the markets (principally Chelford), not the Showman's Yard where the trailer was stored, and therefore travel from home to the markets (via the yard) was not wholly and exclusively for trade and was not deductible. The Tribunal allowed travel to the yard on non‑trading days and varied the Completion Notice to permit an additional £615, resulting in allowable motoring expenses of £1,015 and additional tax/NI due.

Anglo Persian Emporium Trading Co. Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 296 (TC) 1 July 2010 This case concerned Anglo Persian's appeal against a VAT assessment of £12,925 and a misdeclaration penalty after import duty on carpets was wrongly reclaimed as input VAT. The First-tier Tribunal held the assessment was correctly issued, found a failure to declare the correct tax with no reasonable excuse, and confirmed a penalty of £1,938 mitigated by 50% to £969; interest was also payable.

M J P Media Services Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 298 (TC) 1 July 2010 M J P Media Services Ltd appealed HMRC’s denial of a £6,690,000 loan relationship deduction arising from a partial waiver of an inter-company debt. The Tribunal found MJP failed, on the balance of probabilities, to prove key transactions were cash loans and excluded several items from the loan relationship; as a matter of law it held Schedule 9(6)(3) requires the waived amount to be ignored for the creditor’s debit calculation. The appeal was dismissed.

Oasis Technologies (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 292 (TC) 1 July 2010 Oasis Technologies appealed HMRC's decision that takings from its Electronic Lottery Ticket Vending Machines (ELTVMs) were taxable supplies for VAT. The Tribunal found ELTVMs met the definition of "gaming machines" but nevertheless held supplies via ELTVMs fell within Item 2 (the granting of a right to take part in a lottery) of Group 4 Schedule 9 VATA and were therefore VAT-exempt. The appeal was allowed and the Respondents were ordered to pay the Appellant's costs.

Sonja Moss v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 295 (TC) 1 July 2010 Mrs Moss, who made a married woman's election to pay reduced Class 1 National Insurance contributions 1966–1979, sought to pay Class 3 contributions for 6 April 1975–5 April 1979 to augment her state pension. The Tribunal held the statutory scheme (including reg 132, s14(1) and related provisions) precluded payment of Class 3 for years where Class 1 contributions were paid or treated as paid, and that the Pensions Act 2008 reform with a six‑year retrospective limit did not afford her entitlement. The appeal was dismissed.

The ECU Group plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 1 July 2010 This appeal concerned whether The ECU Group's discretionary multi-currency mortgage management services were VAT-exempt as "transactions concerning currency" or "payments/transfers" under article 135(1)(e) and (d) of the VAT Directive (and corresponding VATA provisions), and whether they amounted to intermediary/negotiation services under item 5, Group 5, Schedule 9 VATA. The Tribunal found that the Appellant's services, viewed as a distinct whole, effected currency exchanges and transfers and therefore fell within the Directive exemptions and corresponding domestic provisions. It further held the services amounted to intermediary/negotiation services when trading was effected via a Prime Broker (but not when trading was effected solely by a Lender's treasury). The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded to the Appellant.

Gary Austin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 312 (TC) 30 June 2010 Mr Austin appealed against 140 fixed penalties (£15,100) for persistent late CIS returns between Feb 2008 and Oct 2009. He relied on dyslexia, reliance on accountants who failed to file returns, and a suspected heart attack; the Tribunal found he had not taken steps to check or correct matters, ignored notices and did not contact HMRC, and dismissed the appeal. The penalties were confirmed.

Ian Blair t/a B-Mac International v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 291 (TC) 29 June 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC’s review decision refusing to restore a vehicle, trailer and 26,000 litres of hydrocarbon oil seized as liable to forfeiture after an undeclared commercial load was intercepted. The Tribunal found the appellant’s and driver’s accounts implausible and inconsistent and upheld the review officer’s decision as reasonable and proportionate. The appeal was dismissed.

Onebill Residential Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 290 (TC) 28 June 2010 Onebill Residential Ltd appealed HMRC decisions disallowing input tax (an amendment to 09/07 return for £12,848.38) and a best‑judgment assessment for periods 12/05–06/07 (£106,453). The tribunal heard unchallenged evidence that Onebill failed to produce original invoices, payment evidence or complete accounting records despite directions, and that supplier checks suggested invoices were unpaid. The tribunal dismissed both appeals, upholding the disallowance and the best‑judgment assessment.

Contrast Graphic Supplies Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 289 (TC) 25 June 2010 Contrast Graphic Supplies Ltd appealed HMRC's assessment seeking recovery of VAT wrongly reclaimed after the company joined the Flat Rate Scheme. The Tribunal held that participation in the Flat Rate Scheme prevented the company from claiming input tax on the EC acquisitions and that HMRC validly recovered the incorrectly reclaimed tax under s.73(2) VATA. The appellant's complaints about the clarity of HMRC's Notice 733 and an alleged failure by HMRC to warn were rejected and did not defeat the assessment. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment of £6,403 upheld.

N J Wood v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 288 (TC) 25 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether a £37,424.49 payment to Mr Wood under a 23 December 2004 Compromise Agreement was taxable earnings or a termination payment attracting the ITEPA £30,000 exemption. The Tribunal found the payment was made in settlement of prospective claims and not as consideration for future services, so £30,000 was exempt and the remaining £7,424 was taxable. HMRC was ordered to amend the appellant's self-assessment accordingly.

BT Trasporti SRL in Liquidation v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 287 (TC) 24 June 2010 This case concerned two trailers owned by BT Trasporti SRL seized by HMRC; the company's liquidator asked for reviews of restoration decisions but the review requests were received after the 45‑day deadline, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear two substantive appeals and struck them out. The Tribunal, however, used its s14A(4) power to order HMRC/UK Border Agency to carry out the reviews out of time and allowed the appeal against HMRC's refusal to review. The Tribunal declined to strike out the substantive appeals for having no reasonable prospect of success because HMRC had not given adequate reasons in the original decisions.

Barnetts (a Firm) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 286 (TC) 22 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether interest earned on a solicitors' general client account and retained by the firm for 2006–07 was taxable as interest or as trading income. The Tribunal found the interest formed part of the solicitors' trading receipts because it was an integral element of the firm's remuneration for conveyancing work, and allowed the appeal, treating the receipts as trading income.

Robert Gary Edgar v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 285 (TC) 22 June 2010 This appeal concerned a claim for VAT input tax of £36,786 submitted as part of a voluntary disclosure; HMRC rejected the claim for lack of VAT invoices. The appellant relied on re‑prepared accounts and a bank/cash reconciliation but produced no valid VAT invoices or other documentary evidence listed in SP 7/2003. The Tribunal refused an adjournment and dismissed the appeal for failure to provide satisfactory evidence of entitlement to input tax.

Ticklock Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 284 (TC) 22 June 2010 This appeal concerned the VAT treatment of 20‑year extensions to existing chalet licences at Silver Bay Holiday Park—whether they were exempt supplies of a licence to occupy land or excluded from exemption as supplies of seasonal pitches. The tribunal found the licence term (clause 6) preventing use as a main residence satisfied the Note 14(b) definition of a seasonal pitch. Consequently the supply fell within item 1(f) and was excluded from the Schedule 9 exemption, making it standard‑rated; the appeal was dismissed.

Dr Michael Wilkinson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 283 (TC) 18 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether a £3,416.19 "relocation" payment and a £633.88 "emergency call‑out" payment were tax‑exempt. The Tribunal held the relocation payment was taxable because Portsmouth was a "permanent workplace" for the relevant year and the statutory removal/relocation exemptions did not apply. It allowed the call‑out claim in part, finding the call‑out travel was in performance of duties but tax‑exempt only up to 40p per mile (1196 miles = £478.40). The remainder of the call‑out payment was not exempt.

Industrial Doors (Scotland) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 282 (TC) 17 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether two vehicles operated by Industrial Doors (Scotland) Ltd met the five statutory conditions in section 167(3) ITEPA to qualify as pooled cars for 2001–2007, and thus whether Class 1A NICs were due. The First-tier Tribunal found the company's witness evidence and documentary indicia credible on the balance of probabilities, held that absence of contemporaneous mileage logs did not defeat pooled-car status, and allowed the appeal, setting aside HMRC's assessment.

John Dixon and Julie Dixon v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 281 (TC) 16 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether a VAT input tax claim submitted on 31 March 2008 was a new claim or a continuation of an earlier VAT427 claim submitted in October 2006 and whether HMRC had properly disposed of the earlier claim. The First-tier Tribunal held the March 2008 submission was a continuation of the October 2006 claim, found that HMRC had acted unreasonably in its handling (including failing to retain or explain defects and not advising appeal rights), and allowed the appeal so that the Appellants could recover the input tax claimed in full.

Alan Roy Willis v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 280 (TC) 15 June 2010 This appeal concerned an HMRC assessment of £7,499.81 (plus interest) disallowing input tax claimed for VAT period 07/07. HMRC inspected the appellant's records, repeatedly requested original invoices and a purchase list, and accepted only £2,242.28 as supported by invoices; the appellant relied on an internal spreadsheet and did not provide the requested invoices. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC acted reasonably in assessing to the best of their judgment and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessment except for the partial allowance.

Colin Moore v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 271 (TC) 14 June 2010 This case concerns HMRC discovery assessments and negligence penalties against Mr Colin Moore for understated taxable interest across tax years 2000–01 to 2003–04 after he completed self-assessment returns and later destroyed historic records. The First-tier Tribunal upheld the assessments because Mr Moore could not rebut HMRC’s figures once records were destroyed, found discovery assessments lawful as the understatement was attributable to his negligent conduct, and reduced the penalties by applying greater abatements (total abatement 75%) than HMRC had done.

John Cree Locke Agnew v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 272 (TC) 14 June 2010 This appeal concerned loss relief claimed by Mr Agnew for a small nail/beauty business run from the family home. The Tribunal found the business was in fact carried on by Mrs Agnew (not the Appellant) and, in any event, that any trade carried on by the Appellant was not conducted on a commercial basis with a view to profit, so loss relief was not available. A 2003–04 discovery assessment was discharged as out of time, but assessments for 2004–05 and 2005–06 and closure notices for 2006–07 to 2008–09 were upheld.

Linda Seaton v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 270 (TC) 14 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether unpaid wages later recovered by an Employment Tribunal could count as "average weekly earnings which in the relevant period have been paid to him" for statutory sick pay (SSP) calculations. The tribunal held the statutory phrase requires actual payment within the relevant period, so wages merely owing during that period but paid later did not qualify. Mrs Seaton's average weekly earnings for the relevant period were nil and beneath the lower earnings limit, so she was not entitled to SSP; the appeal was dismissed.

R G & Mrs B Beebe v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 265 (TC) 14 June 2010 This appeal concerned £100 fixed penalties imposed on each partner for late filing a partnership return. The Tribunal found the statute imposes penalties irrespective of timely payment of tax and that the accountant’s general oral enquiries to HMRC did not amount to a reasonable excuse for late filing. The appeal failed and the penalties remained payable.

Sanleo Ltd & Zonin Restaurants Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 266 (TC) 14 June 2010 Sanleo Ltd and Zonin Restaurants Ltd appealed HMRC Notices requiring VAT security. The tribunal found the original decision by Mr Reeves could have been one a reasonable decision-maker might reach on the material before him, but it could not assess or uphold the review decisions of Mrs Ogburn because she did not give evidence about what she considered or the weight she attached; the appeals were allowed. No costs were ordered.

Sean Harrison-Devereux v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 267 (TC) 14 June 2010 This appeal concerned a refusal by HMRC to refund £4,374.67 VAT charged on four invoices from the Appellant's later contractor, R A Berry & Son Ltd, for completion works to a self‑built house. The tribunal found the invoices related to construction of a patio, driveway and drainage and thus were supplies of services (albeit incorporating materials) which should have been zero‑rated, so no repayable VAT arose to the houseowner. The Commissioners' refusal of repayment was upheld, the appeal dismissed and no costs ordered.

The British Association for Shooting and Conservation Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 268 (TC) 14 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether the residual part of BASC's membership subscriptions fell within the VAT sporting exemption. The tribunal applied a test (following Lewison J) asking whether the supplies were closely linked to the sport and added significant value so that, without them, the sport would be of materially lesser value. Applying that test to unchallenged evidence of BASC's activities, the tribunal found the supplies fell within the sporting exemption and allowed the appeal.

Thomas Pollard v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 269 (TC) 14 June 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's cancellation of Mr Pollard's CIS gross payment status following a review for the year to 13 March 2009 based on multiple late PAYE and Self Assessment payments. The Tribunal held that the number and nature of the late payments meant Mr Pollard failed the statutory compliance test, and that his reliance on his wife and ignorance of the consequences did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and full written findings were provided.

(1)Isle of Wight Council (2)West Berkshire Council (3)Mid-Suffolk District Council (4)South Tynside Metropolitan Borough Council v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 264 (TC) 11 June 2010 This Tribunal considered whether, on remittal, evidence on causation is admissible in appeals by local authorities contesting VAT treatment of off-street parking under article 4(5)(2) of the Sixth VAT Directive. The Tribunal rejected HMRC's contention that the ECJ decision established an irrebuttable presumption that non-taxation causes significant distortions of competition where public and private providers compete beyond a negligible level, and held that causation is a factual matter for the Tribunal; appellants may adduce evidence to show non-taxation would not lead to significant distortion.

Countrywide Estate Agents FS Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 263 (TC) 11 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether a £25m payment from Friends Provident to Countrywide Estate Agents FS Ltd under a 21 August 2002 exclusive distribution agreement was capital (payment for goodwill/asset) or revenue. The First-tier Tribunal found as a matter of fact that Countrywide did not part with goodwill or any capital asset and that the payment was consideration for granting FP exclusive access to Countrywide's market position. The sum was therefore income and taxable as trading receipts; the appeal was dismissed.

Pharmaquim Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 279 (TC) 11 June 2010 Pharmaquim, a wholesale mobile‑phone broker, appealed HMRC’s refusal/assessment denying VAT input tax repayments for two periods; HMRC had traced the transactions to chains ending with missing/defaulter or hijacked traders. The tribunal found the challenged supplies were connected to fraudulent VAT losses and that Pharmaquim (through Dr Khan) knew or ought to have known of that connection given the totality of objective indicators and inadequate due diligence, and dismissed the appeal, awarding costs to HMRC.

JD Classics Holdings Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 259 (TC) 10 June 2010 JD Classics appealed HMRC's reclassification of 23 imported classic cars from "collectors' pieces" (CN 9705) to ordinary motor cars (CN 8703). The Tribunal found the proper comparator for rarity was the functional genus of similar sports cars, allowing distinctions such as SE specification and RHD/LHD, and held all cars were relatively rare. The Tribunal also treated the ECJ test as creating a presumption of historic interest for vehicles in original condition, over 30 years old and out of production, which HMRC failed to rebut for these cars. The appeal was allowed, the cars classified under 9705, and HMRC ordered to pay the appellant's costs.

John Clark v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 10 June 2010 Mr Clark appealed HMRC’s refusal to refund VAT under the DIY housebuilders’ scheme after converting a garage/stable outbuilding into a two‑bed dwelling. The tribunal held the rebuilt south‑west wall counted as a retained façade under Note 18 so the works were not construction of a new dwelling, but treated the building as a residential conversion except for the garage area; the conversion created an additional dwelling for Note 9 purposes. The appeal was allowed in part: refund granted for the conversion works excluding VAT attributable to the garage.

Megaink S.R.O v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 257 (TC) 10 June 2010 Megaink, a Czech VAT‑registered business, claimed repayment of UK VAT for 2005 but HMRC rejected the claim as incomplete because a required Certificate of Status was not supplied by the 30 June 2006 deadline and some 2005 invoices were denominated in euros without VAT amounts shown in sterling. The Tribunal held the 2005 claim invalid for want of the Certificate by the statutory deadline and for failing invoice/claim formalities, upheld HMRC's refusal, and dismissed the appeal with no costs.

Mr T Hovan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 260 (TC) 10 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether SMA (Leeds) Ltd's sale of a vehicle registration mark to a non‑EU buyer was a UK standard‑rated supply for VAT purposes. The Tribunal held the place of supply was the UK because the supplier belonged in the UK, that the transaction was not a transfer/assignment within Schedule 5, and that it did not qualify for zero‑rating under Group 7. The appellant's challenge was dismissed.

Peter Hadfield v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 261 (TC) 10 June 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Hadfield became the beneficial owner of Euro Deferred Shares (and therefore RDS A shares) on 30 November 2004 such that section 135 relief applied, or whether beneficial ownership arose only on assent/settlement in July 2005 when he tendered his RD shares. The tribunal found the Declaration of Trust and the conditional reclassification kept beneficial interests in suspense until the offer became unconditional, so Mr Hadfield did not have absolute entitlement on 30 November 2004. The tribunal upheld HMRC's amendment denying s.135 relief and dismissed the appeal.

Stephen Lloyd Phillips v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 262 (TC) 10 June 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's compulsory VAT registration of Mr Stephen Lloyd Phillips from 24 September 2003 and a best-judgement VAT assessment of about £138,833 for the period 24.9.03–31.10.07. The Tribunal found that, because successive limited companies used by Mr Phillips were not properly constituted, compliant or shown to have taken over assets/trading, he was effectively trading in his own name from 24.9.03 (continuing conduct thereafter) and liable for VAT. The appeal was dismissed and the registration and assessment were confirmed. Costs were reserved.

Hanover Company Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 256 (TC) 9 June 2010 Hanover sold a fixed-price company-formation package and zero-rated printed copies but HMRC assessed the whole package as a single standard-rated supply; the First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC's assessments and a misdeclaration penalty. The Tribunal held the printed material was ancillary to a single supply of company-formation services, confirmed its jurisdiction to consider legitimateexpectation arguments, and rejected Hanover's legitimate expectation and reasonable-excuse defences. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty of £6,180 upheld.

Margaret Elizabeth Wendels v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 476 (TC) 8 June 2010 Mrs Wendels appealed HMRC's refusal to refund VAT under the DIY Builders Scheme for a three-bedroom dwelling built on orchard land subject to a planning occupancy condition. The Tribunal held the planning condition was an occupancy restriction, not a prohibition on separate use or disposal under note 2(c) to group 5, Schedule 8, VAT Act 1994, and found the construction was a one-off private home build not carried out in the course or furtherance of a business. The appeal was allowed and HMRC reserved its position on the amount of the refund.

Jacqueline Williamson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 254 (TC) 7 June 2010 This case concerned whether works to a dilapidated property restored to a dwelling qualified for VAT zero-rating as construction of a dwellinghouse (Group 5, Item 2 Schedule 8) or as an approved alteration of a protected building (Group 6). The Tribunal found the building was not a protected building and no approved alteration was shown, and concluded the works fell within the exclusions for work on an "existing building" in Note (16) so zero-rating did not apply. The appellant's appeal was dismissed.

Stuart Keyte v UK Border Agency [2010] UKFTT 255 (TC) 7 June 2010 This appeal concerned the refusal to restore 20.05 kg of hand-rolling tobacco seized at East Midlands Airport. The tribunal held Mr Keyte’s statutory challenge to the seizure was time-barred, so the goods had to be treated as lawfully seized and as imported for resale; the review decision refusing restoration was reasonable and the appeal was dismissed.

Sarah Grayson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 252 (TC) 3 June 2010 This appeal concerns HMRC's cancellation of Mrs Sarah Grayson's Gross Payment Status for 18 June 2008–18 June 2009 because of late PAYE, late self-assessed tax and late interest payments. The First-tier Tribunal accepted that she satisfied the statutory "reason to expect" test for future compliance but found she had no reasonable excuse for the compliance failures in the qualifying period and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal therefore upheld removal of Gross Payment Status.

C Thompson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 250 (TC) 2 June 2010 This appeal by executor C Thompson challenged a £1,296.86 surcharge for late payment of capital gains tax on the estate of Mrs White for 2007/08. The Tribunal found the appellant's personal business financial hardship did not amount to a "reasonable excuse" because estate funds should have been retained to meet the liability, and that negotiations and a time-to-pay request did not excuse the period after the request was refused. The surcharge was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Stewart Getty v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 251 (TC) 2 June 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's cancellation of Mr Stewart Getty's gross payment status after three late tax payments in the 9 April 2008–9 April 2009 compliance period. The Tribunal found one shortfall (a Self Assessment allocation issue) excused as an allocation oversight attributable to agent/taxpayer change and promptly remedied, but found two late PAYE payments were not excused due to insufficient vigilance and reliance on informal payment practices. Accordingly the Tribunal upheld HMRC's cancellation of gross payment registration.

Gateshead Talmudical College v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 244 (TC) 1 June 2010 Gateshead Talmudical College leased a newly built extension to Starburst Properties Ltd under an opt-to-tax leaseback, reclaimed input VAT, but rent ceased by 1998 and Starburst was dissolved in 1999. HMRC made capital goods scheme adjustments for 1999–2006, and the Tribunal held earlier appeals res judicata, found that the making of taxable supplies fell to nil (at the latest on Starburst’s dissolution) and applied regulation 115(2) to require full adjustments. The appeal was dismissed and assessed sums with interest were ordered paid.

Roma II Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 243 (TC) 27 May 2010 Roma II claimed input VAT of £167,737.50 for October 2006 arising from a large cross‑border sale chain; HMRC refused, alleging the transaction was connected to VAT fraud. The tribunal found that Keycomp had fraudulently failed to account for output VAT and that Roma II’s director, Mr Nayar, given prior MTIC warnings, limited due diligence, release of goods before payment/inspection and other indicia, ought to have known the transaction was connected with fraudulent VAT evasion. The appeal was dismissed and Roma II was ordered to pay HMRC’s costs.

Sam Bond & Sarah Baxter v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 242 (TC) 27 May 2010 This appeal concerned a claim by Sam Bond and Sarah Baxter for a VAT refund for fitting-out works to their flat in the Jam Factory development; HMRC refused because the development as constructed lacked lawful planning permission when the works were carried out. The First-tier Tribunal found the works were unlawful at the time they were done, so the statutory requirement for the refund was not met, and dismissed the appeal, although it also held the flat met the separate "dwelling-house" test and noted an arguable unfairness issue.

Anthony Fitzpatrick v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 241 (TC) 26 May 2010 Mr FitzPatrick appealed a £149.71 default surcharge imposed after he underpaid his 2007–08 self‑assessment liability by 31 January 2009. The Tribunal held that while being misled by HMRC can in principle amount to a "reasonable excuse", that defence only applies where HMRC actively misled the taxpayer and the taxpayer did not materially contribute to the misunderstanding. On the facts the Tribunal found HMRC did not actively mislead Mr FitzPatrick and he had contributed to the misunderstanding, so the surcharge was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

ERF Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 238 (TC) 25 May 2010 This appeal concerned ERF Ltd's challenges to multiple VAT assessments and a civil evasion penalty arising from dishonest VAT returns prepared by its financial controller for 1996–2001. The Tribunal held most earlier appeals out of time, found the 4 March 2004 assessment valid as made within one year of HMRC receiving the final reconstruction (BDO/3), and upheld the penalty generally but reduced it by £36,217.20 to exclude three non-culpable transposition items. Costs were awarded to HMRC.

Glamorgan Prestige Developments Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 237 (TC) 24 May 2010 Glamorgan Prestige Developments Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to allow £1,916.83 input tax claimed on its first VAT return, arguing the disputed pre-registration supplies were goods rather than services. The tribunal held the items were services and therefore fell outside the six‑month pre‑registration input tax exception, dismissing the appeal and upholding HMRC's disallowance.

Xentric Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 249 (TC) 24 May 2010 This case records the First-tier Tribunal's decision on HMRC’s late service of eight witness statements in an MTIC-related VAT appeal by Xentric Limited. The Tribunal found each of the eight statements relevant but refused permission to admit them because their late service, close to the hearing and contrary to prior directions, would unfairly prejudice the Appellant. One ninth statement (Armstrong) was permitted; costs of the application were reserved.

Michael O'Donnell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 236 (TC) 21 May 2010 Michael O'Donnell appealed HMRC's partial refusal of a DIY builders VAT refund for his self-built dwelling, challenging disallowance of invoices totalling £24,509.66. The Tribunal found the disputed supplies were zero-rated services (or mixed supplies treated as services under Schedule 8) and therefore no VAT was "chargeable" for the purposes of s.35 refund claims. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's refusal upheld. The Tribunal noted suppliers who charged VAT in error should correct their invoices.

Segesta Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 235 (TC) 21 May 2010 This appeal concerned whether sums paid by BFC to Mr Oyston in December 1999, which he immediately used to subscribe for shares, were "repayments of debt" or other payments under paragraph 13(2) of Schedule 5B TCGA and so rendered the shares ineligible for reinvestment relief. The Tribunal found parts of the sums were repayments of valid loans (including a novated debt from Zabaxe) falling within paragraph 13(2)(b), while other parts were restitutionary recoveries not caught by paragraph 13(2). Because sufficient value was treated as received in the relevant seven-year period, the shares were not eligible and the appeal was dismissed.

Kanchan Devi Agnihotri v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 230 (TC) 20 May 2010 This case concerns Mrs Kanchan Devi Agnihotri’s appeal against HMRC’s amendment to her 2002/03 self assessment, discovery assessments for tax years 1996/97–2004/05, and related penalties. HMRC made estimates of additional taxable income after receiving incomplete records and conducted a discovery under section 29 TMA; the Tribunal found those estimates fair and upheld the assessments. The Tribunal also held that Mrs Agnihotri failed to notify chargeability and to keep adequate business records, making her liable to penalties which were not disturbed. The appeal was dismissed.

Marijus Leliunga v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 229 (TC) 20 May 2010 This case concerns Mr Leliunga's application for an extension of time to admit a notice of appeal against a closure notice and assessment issued 12 January 2007; the appeal was lodged on 24 November 2009, over 2 years and 10 months late. The First-tier Tribunal refused the extension, finding no reasonable excuse for delay (the enquiry files had been archived and retrieved, and prior professional representation and contact with HMRC made the appellant aware of the issues and time limits). As a result the late notice of appeal was not admitted.

Mr D Farquhar v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 231 (TC) 20 May 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Farquhar was UK resident for 2003/04–2005/06 and which method should be used to calculate his average annual UK visits while employed offshore. HMRC applied the IR20/centre‑based tax‑year calculation and concluded his average exceeded the relevant threshold; the appellant relied on a South Wales/H T S L days‑average method and a claimed legitimate expectation of consistent departmental treatment. The Tribunal found, as a fact, his non‑UK employment began 25 August 2003, that the IR20 approach produced averages exceeding the threshold even allowing split‑year treatment, and dismissed the appeal.

Parker Car Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 227 (TC) 19 May 2010 This case concerned whether sums retained by Parker Car Services (labelled "Account Work Commission/Discount") from fares paid by account customers constituted consideration for a taxable supply of services to account drivers under s.5(2)(b) VATA 1994. The First-tier Tribunal found that PCS provided only XDA device hire (already subject to VAT) to drivers and that other administrative/marketing functions were PCS's own business costs, not supplies to drivers. The retained sums were a bookkeeping/calculation mechanism in the CORDIC system and not consideration for a separate supply to drivers. The appeal was allowed and HMRC's assessment disallowed; costs were awarded to PCS with quantum to be determined separately.

Recoverypak Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 226 (TC) 19 May 2010 Recoverypak appealed a post-clearance demand for anti-dumping duty on imported black plastic bags, arguing they had relied on HMRC telephone advice and that the goods originated in the UK. The Tribunal found no reliable evidence the helpline gave the alleged misleading advice, held the manufacturing in China was a substantial, transforming process so the bags originated in China, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the duty demand.

S D Solutions Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 228 (TC) 19 May 2010 S D Solutions Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to backdate its entry to the Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) from its VAT registration date (1 July 2005) to avoid VAT liabilities. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC reasonably exercised its discretion under the regulations and FRS guidance, and that the company's cessation of trade, indebtedness and reliance on others did not amount to “exceptional circumstances” justifying retrospection. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's authorisation from 1 April 2009 remained in place.

David Woodmore v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 278 (TC) 18 May 2010 This appeal challenges HMRC's refusal to restore a Vauxhall Astra seized with hand-rolling tobacco, focusing on whether the reviewer (Mr Crouch) was reasonable to find no exceptional hardship. The First-tier Tribunal upheld Mr Crouch's decision, finding the appellant had access to alternative transport and that the mother's payments did not amount to a financial investment lost by seizure. The tribunal concluded the inconvenience and financial consequences did not meet the threshold of exceptional hardship and dismissed the appeal.

Mrs Cherie Smith v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 221 (TC) 18 May 2010 Mrs Cherie Smith appealed HMRC surcharge notices for late payment of income tax for year ended 5 April 2006. The Tribunal found the tax return was submitted on 2 December 2008 and tax paid on 15 October 2008, so payment was not made by the due date, and on the balance of probabilities there was no verbal agreement with HMRC to waive penalties. The appeal was dismissed and the decision reissued with full reasons; parties were given 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

OK Trans Limited v UK Border Agency [2010] UKFTT 223 (TC) 18 May 2010 OK Trans Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to restore a seized tractor unit and trailer used to carry 24 pallets of beer with evaded excise duty. The tribunal found insufficient evidence of OK Trans’s direct complicity but concluded the company had not taken adequate, verifiable precautions (given its history and the circumstances) and that no exceptional hardship was shown. The appeal was dismissed and restoration refused.

Reed Employment Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 222 (TC) 18 May 2010 Reed Employment sought to prevent HMRC amending their statement of case to plead an agency defence to Reed’s repayment claims for various periods. The tribunal held HMRC did not need further permission to amend, finding earlier directions and correspondence contemplated such amendments and that, on balance, allowing the amendment better served adjudication of the real dispute despite potential prejudice from lost pre-1991 documents. Reed’s application to strike out or prevent the amendment was dismissed.

Apex Design & Build Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 216 (TC) 13 May 2010 Apex Design & Build Ltd appealed HMRC penalties for late CIS monthly returns covering July 2007–March 2009, asserting they had not received returns from HMRC. The Tribunal found Apex failed to establish a reasonable excuse (no evidence of an event beyond its control) and upheld HMRC’s monthly and final late filing penalties, ordering recalculation of penalties from September 2007. The appeal was dismissed.

Interfish Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 219 (TC) 13 May 2010 Interfish Ltd paid large sponsorship sums and loans to Plymouth Albion RFC which HMRC disallowed as trading deductions under the s74(1) “wholly and exclusively” test. The Tribunal found Interfish’s conscious purpose was to improve the Club (notably its player budget) so as to secure favourable treatment and commercial advantages, meaning those payments were not made wholly and exclusively for the purposes of Interfish’s trade. The Tribunal dismissed the appeals on the main point but left open that some specific individual sums might be deductible and invited further agreement or argument on those items.

Lakbir Singh Uppal v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 215 (TC) 13 May 2010 This appeal concerned a £74,647.21 termination payment under the Post Office Closure Scheme paid to a husband-and-wife partnership where the husband was the sub-postmaster. The Tribunal found the payment was partnership property received in equal shares but nevertheless both halves were connected to the husband's loss of office and therefore fell within ss 401 and 403 ITEPA as employment income to the husband to the extent above the £30,000 exemption. HMRC's amendment to include £44,647 as taxable employment income was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Maurice Cragg v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 214 (TC) 13 May 2010 This appeal concerned a surcharge for a 659‑day late self‑assessment return and payment for 2005–06. The First-tier Tribunal, on a paper hearing, found the appellant did not prove a reasonable excuse for the period of default and upheld the calculated surcharge of £75.54. The Tribunal declined to adjourn for further documents and accepted HMRC’s written case as sufficient.

Mr Simon Levin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 217 (TC) 13 May 2010 This appeal concerned a 5% surcharge (£521.37) imposed for late payment of Mr Levin’s 2008 self-assessment tax liability, which was due 31 January 2009 and paid on 2 March 2009. The Tribunal held Mr Levin did not show a "reasonable excuse" for the whole period of default (31.01.2009–01.03.2009), rejecting reliance on HMRC reminders or online filing difficulties. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge confirmed.

Pertemps Recruitment Partnership Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 218 (TC) 13 May 2010 Pertemps received customer overpayments made under a mistake, which it mixed into its single bank account and used for business expenses; it did not hold those payments on trust and treated them as its own money unless refunded. The First-tier Tribunal held those mistaken payments were receipts arising from Pertemps' trade and therefore taxable as trading profits; the appeal was dismissed.

R P Griffin & D M Griffen v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 220 (TC) 13 May 2010 The Griffins appealed a VAT default surcharge for period 08/08 imposed after a late payment; the Tribunal found they did not have a reasonable excuse for the 08/08 default but did have a reasonable excuse for an earlier 02/08 default because they entered into and complied with a Time to Pay arrangement. Applying the Aardvark approach, the Tribunal treated the 02/08 default as if it had not occurred for surcharge calculation, reducing the applicable rate from 10% to 5% and halving the surcharge from £665.62 to £332.81. The appeal was allowed in part.

Third Stone Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 234 (TC) 13 May 2010 Third Stone Ltd appealed HMRC penalties for failing to file employer end-of-year PAYE returns for 2006/07–2008/09. The Tribunal found that the company’s director had relied on the company secretary/agent without evidence that returns had been filed and that this reliance did not amount to a "reasonable excuse." The penalties were upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Amir Anwar v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 213 (TC) 11 May 2010 This appeal concerned a £865.72 late payment surcharge for income tax due 31 January 2009; Mr Anwar paid late after filing an online return and claimed he had been misled by HMRC into missing the due date. The First-tier Tribunal, on paper evidence, found he was not misled by HMRC (telephone advice and correspondence) and that he had no reasonable excuse for late payment. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge upheld.

Mr K G & Mrs H E Johnston (Johnston Builders) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 212 (TC) 11 May 2010 This is an appeal by Johnston Builders against HMRC Regulation 13 CIS determinations totaling £834.84 for tax HMRC say should have been deducted from payments to a sub-contractor (Mr N) for 2004–07. The Tribunal found the Johnstons were contractors, Mr N was a sub-contractor, the Appellants did not operate CIS or make the required deductions/returns, and they failed to satisfy Regulation 9 conditions (reasonable care and proof the sub-contractor paid the tax). The appeal was dismissed and HMRC was entitled to recover £834.84.

Pinnacle Office Equipment Ltd Pinnacle Telecom (Wales) Ltd Pinnacle Office Supplies v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 211 (TC) 11 May 2010 This appeal by three associated VAT-registered Pinnacle companies challenged default surcharge, interest and penalties assessed by HMRC, arguing their employee group accountant's ill health caused late and inaccurate VAT returns. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the companies had no reasonable excuse: they had delegated VAT duties entirely to the accountant without adequate supervisory checks despite knowing of his shortcomings. The appeal was dismissed.

Andrew Brady Blackwood Quarry Engineering Limited v UK Border Agency [2010] UKFTT 209 (TC) 10 May 2010 Mr Andrew Brady appealed the UK Border Agency's refusal to restore a seized Mitsubishi pickup and 24 kg of hand-rolling tobacco seized on return from Belgium. The Tribunal held it would be an abuse of process to allow Mr Brady to advance an "own use" defence he had not raised in Magistrates' condemnation proceedings and found the reviewing officer acted reasonably in refusing restoration on hardship grounds, so restoration was refused; modest costs were awarded to Mr and Mrs Brady.

Peter Vass v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 208 (TC) 7 May 2010 The appellant sought VAT deregistration effective 30 June 2008, alleging he posted a VAT7 in June 2008; HMRC denied receipt and the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that HMRC had not received the June form or a September covering letter. Applying the statutory provision relied on by HMRC, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and backdated deregistration to 30 September 2008. The central assessment for July was not reduced.

Djilal Benahmed & Laima Miskinyte v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 207 (TC) 6 May 2010 This is an appeal against HMRC's refusal to restore a BMW seized with 12kg of hand rolling tobacco after the appellants withdrew magistrates' condemnation proceedings. The Tribunal held the appellants' withdrawal did not justify re-opening the lawfulness of seizure in the restoration appeal and that HMRC's decision to refuse restoration was one a reasonable decision-maker could reach, so the appeal was dismissed.

GMAC UK Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 202 (TC) 6 May 2010 GMAC sought VAT bad-debt relief of £2,302,743 for hire-purchase supplies made between 1978 and 1997; the tribunal considered whether UK statutory preconditions (an insolvency requirement and a requirement that property had passed) implementing Article 11C(1) Sixth Directive were compatible with EC law, whether granting relief would create an unlawful windfall when combined with other domestic reliefs, and whether domestic time limits barred pre-1989 claims. The tribunal disapplied the incompatible insolvency and property requirements, rejected the windfall/distortion argument, disapplied the retrospective time-bar, and allowed the appeal in principle.

Paul Johnson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 6 May 2010 This appeal concerned a golf professional's claim for repayment of overpaid VAT on tuition from 12/81 to 03/06 made by voluntary disclosure. The tribunal found the appellant had not proved the quantum claimed because the disclosure lacked contemporaneous records or any rational evidential basis, and upheld HMRC’s use of a previously accepted 7.14% apportionment (with adjustments for registration dates and VAT rate changes). The appeal was dismissed.

Sceptre Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 315 (TC) 6 May 2010 This decision concerns HMRC's late application to rely on a witness statement by Mr Ian Henderson based on FCIB cash-flow data in an MTIC input VAT appeal by Sceptre Services Ltd. The Tribunal found the FCIB evidence relevant to the integrity of the alleged deal chains but refused permission to admit it because its late production would unfairly prejudice the appellant and undermine case management and the ability to prepare rebuttal. The application was therefore refused and costs were reserved.

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 6 May 2010 The appellant (Sumitomo Mitsui) sought costs after losing a VAT place-of-supply appeal; it complained HMRC's skeleton argument, served shortly before the hearing, materially changed HMRC's case. The Tribunal found a material and substantive late change, declined to confine HMRC because the appellant was not substantially prejudiced, but nevertheless awarded modest wasted-preparation costs of £20,000 plus VAT and refused costs for the conceded "settled amount."

Timothy James Bramston (Liquadator of DCC Realisations Limited) & Anthony Murphy and Robert Horton (Former Administrators of DCC Realisations Limited) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 6 May 2010 This appeal concerned whether an excise duty point arose when DCC Realisations Ltd permanently ceased trading on 23 July 2007 while cider/made‑wine remained on its premises, and whether a prior‑approved removal of made‑wine to DCCR treated those premises as the place of production for duty liability. The Tribunal held that regulation 13(a) created an excise duty point on discontinuance of the registered maker’s business and that the Gaymer removal was approved under reg 12(c)(i) WMWRs so DCCR (the registered maker) was liable. The appeal was dismissed and DCCR was held liable for the assessed duty.

Bellflower Racing Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 5 May 2010 Bellflower Racing Ltd appealed HMRC’s requirement that it provide VAT security under Schedule 11 paragraph 4(2)(a). The tribunal found HMRC had reasonable grounds given Bellflower’s outstanding VAT debt, recent repayment-return submissions, and the director’s connections with other indebted or insolvent companies, and it upheld both the power to require security and the method/amounts used to calculate it. The appeal was dismissed.

Devon & Cornwall Surfacing Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 5 May 2010 Devon & Cornwall Surfacing Ltd appealed loss of gross payment status after late CIS returns and late PAYE/NIC/subcontractor payments. The Tribunal found the company had reasonably and justifiably relied on its company secretary, that this reliance caused the defaults, and that the company had remedied matters and could be expected to comply going forward. On that basis the company had a "reasonable excuse" and satisfied the CIS compliance test, so the appeal was allowed.

Ms A Z v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 225 (TC) 5 May 2010 This case records appeals by Ms A Z against late filing penalties and late payment surcharges for a series of tax years. The First-tier Tribunal quashed the late filing penalty for 2002–03 and quashed late payment surcharges for 2002–03, 2003–04, 2005–06 and 2008–09, while dismissing the appeal against the late filing penalty for 2007–08 and upholding surcharges for 2006–07 and 2007–08. The decision includes full written reasons, an appendix of return dates, liabilities and surcharge amounts, and procedural directions on appeals to the Upper Tribunal.

Shaun Batchelor Electrical Contractors Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 5 May 2010 This appeal challenged a 5% VAT default surcharge imposed because Shaun Batchelor Electrical Contractors Ltd filed and paid its 06/09 VAT return 10 days late. The company relied on the director's holiday and cash-flow problems (including a customer insolvency and an account at overdraft limit) as a "reasonable excuse." The Tribunal found those explanations insufficient, noted prior warnings about defaults, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the £428.95 surcharge.

G C Ware Electrics v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 30 April 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's cancellation of Mr Ware's CIS gross payment status for late tax payments due 31 July 2008 and 31 January 2009. The tribunal found he did not comply with those payment obligations, that regulation 32's 28-day exemption did not apply because of a prior relevant failure within 12 months, and that only the 2007/08 delay might have had a reasonable excuse while the 2008/09 failure did not; the appeal was dismissed.

Howard Peter Schofield v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 30 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether an £11,305,017 loss claimed by Mr Schofield on the surrender/close‑out of one of four interrelated option contracts was an allowable capital loss under the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The Tribunal found the four options formed a single pre‑ordained composite scheme (a "digital collar") entered solely to eliminate a known gain, lacking independent commercial purpose, and therefore the claimed loss was not a real loss against TCGA and was disallowed. The Tribunal also (alternatively) held that the gilt options were, on their ordinary contractual wording, options over gilt‑edged securities and therefore their gains were exempt under s.115 TCGA 1992.

UKCO MrXX v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 419 (TC) 29 April 2010 This case concerns whether licence fees for an invention, paid through a family-owned US agent (USCO) to a UK company (UKCO) registered as licensee, were beneficially owned by the inventor (Mr XX) and taxable on him, or were company receipts/annual payments/emoluments subject to withholding and NICs. The Tribunal found the December 1998 UK registration was a nominee arrangement, beneficial ownership always remained with Mr XX, and the licence fees were trading receipts of his inventor trade (Schedule D Case I) taxable on him. Accordingly UKCO's appeals against assessments under s349 ICTA (Para 4), PAYE and NIC were allowed, while Mr XX's Schedule D appeals were dismissed; HMRC's discovery/limitation point was also upheld for assessment timing.

Bashar Sandouk t/a Didi's Pizza v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 28 April 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC’s VAT assessment and a misdeclaration penalty against Bashar Sandouk trading as Didi’s Pizza after inspection of till records and other documents. The Tribunal found the appellant’s explanations and evidence inconsistent and unreliable, and that HMRC had reasonably made assessments “to the best of their judgment” based on available evidence. The amended VAT assessment of £36,557 and amended penalty of £4,978 were upheld and the appeal was dismissed. No costs were ordered.

Denbrae Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 28 April 2010 Denbrae appealed HMRC assessments disallowing input VAT on legal fees incurred in litigation against former directors and sought repayment of a later voluntary disclosure. The Tribunal held the legal services were not incurred for the purposes of Denbrae’s taxable economic activity (no direct and immediate link to output transactions), confirmed the amended assessment of £30,863, and refused repayment of the voluntary disclosure for lack of evidence. The misdeclaration penalty had been withdrawn and no costs order was made.

SRI International v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 28 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether SRI International was entitled to a VAT refund in respect of a 2004 premium paid to be released from a rent guarantee, and related procedural challenges about the Tribunal reopening its earlier Decision under rule 38 after late document service. The Tribunal reinstated its original Decision, found that SRI Consulting (not SRI International) held the Atomic Tangerine shares and carried on the relevant spin-off activity, and held that the premium was paid to liquidate SRI International's liability rather than for the purposes of any business, so no VAT refund was due. The appellant was ordered to pay two thirds of HMRC's costs of the directions hearing.

Grenane Properties Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 27 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether Grenane validly made an "option to tax" (election to waive VAT exemption) before selling development land. Although a VAT1614 form was submitted and acknowledged by HMRC, the Tribunal found Grenane had not formed the requisite positive intention to elect and allowed the appeal, rejecting HMRC's amended assessment. No costs were ordered.

Lyle Taggart & Anne Taggart t/a The Fullerton Arms v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 27 April 2010 This is an appeal by Mr and Mrs Taggart, trading as the Fullerton Arms, against HMRC's refusal to allow input tax claimed by voluntary disclosure for VAT period 01/02–30/04/02. The VAT652 disclosure asserted input tax of £31,666 but the appellants failed to provide invoices, breakdowns, timing evidence or other corroboration despite repeated requests and Tribunal directions. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal for want of sufficient evidence and for failure to comply with directions; no order as to costs was made.

GBL & Sons Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 190 (TC) 26 April 2010 GBL & Sons appealed an excise duty assessment after its Unimog/Vactor rail‑track maintenance combination was found to have used rebated "red diesel" while on the road. The parties agreed the appellant bore the burden to show the vehicle fell within Schedule 1 paragraph 2 exceptions, and the tribunal found it did not. The assessment for an amount equal to the rebate (£1,277) was upheld; the revenue waived any penalty for good faith.

Goldman Sachs International v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 205 (TC) 26 April 2010 This preliminary Tribunal decision addressed whether Goldman Sachs International (GSI) was the secondary National Insurance contributor for two employees whose contracts were said to be with Goldman Sachs Services Ltd (GSSL). On the limited evidence and assumptions at the preliminary hearing, the tribunal found GSSL had no place of business or presence in Great Britain for 1997–2000 and that GSI was the host employer and therefore the secondary contributor. The finding is provisional and was made for the purposes of the preliminary issue only.

Michael Smith v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 26 April 2010 Michael Smith appealed two late-filing penalties for a 2005–06 Contractors Return. The Tribunal found he initially had a reasonable excuse in relying on his accountant, but that this excuse ceased when he received the first penalty notice in March 2007. The Tribunal concluded the return was not filed without unreasonable delay after the excuse ended (it was submitted about 14 months later), dismissed the appeal and confirmed both penalties.

Mrs Patricia Register v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 26 April 2010 Mrs Patricia Register appealed HMRC's finding that she did not pay Class 2 National Insurance contributions between 1970 and 1976, claiming she paid by stamps and producing an accountant's 1976 letter. The tribunal found her evidence insufficient to overturn HMRC's records and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal noted an earlier HMRC offer to allow a near‑full pension on payment and that Mrs Register may seek permission to appeal.

S Barnard Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 26 April 2010 This case concerned whether S Barnard Ltd met condition B of s 169(4) ITEPA — that providing an equivalent car was "normal commercial practice" for the employment held by Mrs Barnard — and so whether Class 1A NICs and a penalty were payable. The tribunal accepted HMRC’s characterisation of the statutory test, found the appellant had not adduced sufficient evidence that providing an equivalent car was normal commercial practice for that kind of employment, and dismissed the appeal and the related penalty appeal.

Buy As You View Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 23 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether cleaning, testing and certain replacements made to repossessed household electrical goods before resale breached Article 4(1)'s "same condition" requirement for VAT. The Tribunal confined formal decision to four items and held that replacing remote controls, TV stands, washing machine hoses and washing machine filters did not breach Article 4(1), allowing the appellant's claims on those items. The Tribunal also set out three guiding principles on ancillary items, consumables and trivial versus material repairs, and gave provisional views on many other items without formal determination.

GGN Builders Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 23 April 2010 GGN Builders carried out re-roofing works at Holly House including removal of felt and slates and incorporation of over-rafter insulation. The tribunal found the works were essentially repair and maintenance rather than an "approved alteration" of a protected building and dismissed the appellant's claim for zero-rating, treating the roofing works as standard-rated. The appeal was dismissed with no costs order and the appellant may apply for permission to appeal.

Paul Newey t/a Ocean Finance v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 23 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether loan-broking supplies and large UK-targeted advertising services were supplied by Paul Newey personally or by his Jersey company Alabaster, and whether the use of Alabaster amounted to an abuse of the Sixth VAT Directive. The Tribunal found on the facts that Alabaster, not Newey, made the loan-broking supplies and was the recipient of the advertising services, and that although Alabaster was established to obtain a tax advantage this did not contravene the purpose of the Directive. The appeal was allowed and costs were awarded to the appellant; the precise assessment amount was not determined.

Selective Marketplace Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 22 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether retail sales from temporary storage could lawfully make the customer the importer so as to avoid customs duty and reduce VAT, and alternatively whether the arrangements were abusive. The Tribunal held the scheme was ineffective: part-removal/sale from temporary storage by SML amounted to release to free circulation by SML, creating duty and VAT liability, and in any event the arrangements were abusive and struck down. The appeal was dismissed.

Basil Bimson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 21 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether a £77,905.99 Post Office closure payment to Mr Bimson (less the £30,000 statutory exemption) was taxable as a payment in consequence of termination of an office/employment under ITEPA chapter 3. The First-tier Tribunal held the sub-postmaster role was an “office”, the payment was compensation for loss of that office and therefore fell within s401 ITEPA, and Mr Bimson could not deduct his capital/conversion costs from the compensatory payment. The appeal was refused and HMRC’s amendment upheld.

Echotech Heating Solutions Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 20 April 2010 Ecotech appealed HMRC's refusal to register it as a Registered Dealer in Controlled Oils (RDCO). The Tribunal found Ecotech's director knew he must not trade without RDCO approval and that Ecotech had engaged in non-compliant activity; although HMRC delayed six months in deciding, that delay alone did not require registration. The Tribunal held HMRC's refusal was within the range of reasonable conclusions and dismissed the appeal.

LHA-ASRA Group Ltd (previously Leicester Housing Association Ltd) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 20 April 2010 LHA appealed HMRC's view that LHA made a taxable supply of refurbishment services to Leicester City Council in connection with the transfer of the Braunstone estate. The tribunal found that LHA did not supply refurbishment services to LCC, treating the post-transfer works as improvements to LHA's (the transferee's) property rather than a taxable supply to the transferor, and dismissed the appeal. No determination on consideration was made because no supply was found.

Best Images Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 16 April 2010 The case concerned whether Best Images Limited's hires of Vickram's halls (primarily for Indian weddings) were a single supply of premises plus services or separate supplies, and if single, whether that supply was a passive letting of land (VAT-exempt) or a standard-rated supply of services. The tribunal found the bookings were a single, indivisible package of premises and substantial additional support (catering arrangements, on-site management, staff, equipment etc.). It held that those added services were not merely ancillary to a passive letting of land, so the supplies were standard-rated. The appeal was dismissed.

British Dental Association v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 16 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether free membership granted by a mutual dental association to student members was a non-business activity for VAT purposes and whether input tax should be disallowed or apportioned accordingly. The tribunal held the free student membership was an integral, commercially-motivated part of the appellant’s single business (recruiting future paying members and obtaining contact details) and therefore not a non-business use that would trigger section 24(5) apportionment or disallowance. HMRC’s argument to disallow input tax on that account was dismissed and the appeal was allowed with costs to the appellant.

Christopher Wills v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 16 April 2010 This case concerns Christopher Wills’s appeal against HMRC’s disallowance of £43,665 claimed as repairs to a listed outbuilding, which HMRC treated as capital expenditure. The Tribunal found the works were essential repairs (including structural shoring) to prevent collapse, did not change the building’s use into accommodation or create a separate dwelling, and therefore were revenue in nature. The appeal was allowed and the repair deduction permitted.

Equinox Gifted Thoughts Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 173 (TC) 16 April 2010 This is an appeal by Equinox Gifted Thoughts Ltd against an HMRC Refusal Notice assessing the company for PAYE underdeductions for 2005–06 and 2006–07. The tribunal found the employer did not take reasonable care under Regulation 72(3) when transitioning payroll from manual tables to HMRC CD‑ROM software (including omission of a K prefix), and dismissed the appeal, leaving the company liable for the shortfall. The tribunal also found no unreasonable delay by HMRC.

Paul Morewood v Director of Border Revenue [2010] UKFTT 169 (TC) 15 April 2010 This appeal concerns Mr Paul Morewood's challenge to the Director's refusal to restore 6 kg of hand-rolling tobacco seized at Liverpool Airport on 22 June 2009. The tribunal held that a restoration appeal is distinct from condemnation proceedings and that, because Mr Morewood had withdrawn his prior timely challenge to the legality of the seizure, the tribunal could not relitigate lawfulness on the restoration appeal. The appeal was dismissed and the reviewing officer's refusal to restore was upheld.

Peter Hilton v Director of Border Revenue [2010] UKFTT 168 (TC) 15 April 2010 This appeal concerns Mr Peter Hilton's challenge to the Director of Border Revenue's refusal to restore 6 kg of hand‑rolling tobacco seized on arrival from Spain on 22 June 2009. Mr Hilton initially challenged the legality of the seizure but withdrew that challenge before condemnation proceedings were commenced; the Director refused restoration and the tribunal dismissed his appeal. The tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to re‑determine seizure lawfulness on a restoration appeal where the legality challenge had been withdrawn, and confirmed the refusal to restore.

A D England as Trustee of Mrs M E England Discretionary Will Trust v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 14 April 2010 This case concerns an appeal by Mr England against a late payment surcharge of £2,267.97 imposed after trustees paid tax for a discretionary will trust late. The First-tier Tribunal held there was no "reasonable excuse" for the late payment, and even if one had initially existed it did not continue after about 19 May 2009 when HMRC acknowledged the return; the surcharge was therefore confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Alasdair MacDonald v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 172 (TC) 14 April 2010 This case concerns Mr MacDonald’s application for permission to appeal out of time against HMRC Closure Notices disallowing carry-forward loss relief for 2005–06 and 2006–07. The Tribunal considered whether he had a "reasonable excuse" under TMA s.49 for failing to appeal within the 30‑day statutory period and whether he gave notice without unreasonable delay after any excuse ceased. The Tribunal found his reliance on a belief that no categorical list of "trades" existed and on correspondence with ministers did not constitute a reasonable excuse, and dismissed the application for permission to appeal out of time.

Integral Resources (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 167 (TC) 14 April 2010 Integral Resources claimed VAT zero‑rating for supplies of Red Bull to Spanish and Polish customers; HMRC denied zero‑rating and assessed VAT. The tribunal found Integral’s documentary proof (CMRs, invoices, untranslated foreign papers) and due diligence inadequate, that recipients were missing traders and that Integral knew or ought to have known the goods did not reliably reach the stated destinations. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s assessments (about £284,695 plus interest) were upheld.

Mian Farukh Mahmood t/a Mahmood Mobile Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 166 (TC) 14 April 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC assessments disallowing input VAT claimed by Mr Mahmood for wholesale mobile phone purchases, together with misdeclaration penalties and a default surcharge. The tribunal rejected Mr Mahmood’s account that assistants/relatives purchased stock on his behalf, found the retail receipts unreconciled to sales and not credible evidence of entitlement to input tax, and upheld HMRC’s best-judgment assessments, penalties and surcharge. Costs were reserved.

William Brian Langthorne v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 171 (TC) 14 April 2010 Mr Langthorne appealed HMRC's decision that his failure to pay Class 3 National Insurance contributions for 1955–1967 was caused by ignorance or error due to lack of due care and diligence. The Tribunal found he knew of the National Insurance scheme before going abroad, did not tell the DHSS in 1967 about his 12 years overseas, and therefore failed to exercise due care and diligence. The appeal was dismissed.

Capital Air Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 160 (TC) 13 April 2010 Capital Air Services applied to have its VAT appeal about purchase and chartering of a helicopter allocated as a "complex" case under Rule 23. The Tribunal adopted a restrictive interpretation of the complex category and held the case, though in the top half of standard cases, was not sufficiently exceptional to be classified as complex. The appeal was therefore categorised as a standard case.

F 1 Promotions Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 159 (TC) 13 April 2010 F1 Promotions sought input VAT refunds for five 2005 memory‑card transactions but HMRC assessed to recover repayments, finding the supplier invoices did not adequately describe the quantity and nature of the goods and that Deal 5 was not proved. The First‑tier Tribunal held the invoices for Deals 1–4 did not represent the goods supplied, HMRC’s refusal to exercise discretion to accept alternative evidence was not unreasonable, and section 73 assessments to recover the repayments were lawful. The appeal was dismissed.

Harold Hugh Collinson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 165 (TC) 13 April 2010 This case concerns an application by Harold Collinson for a direction that HMRC issue a closure notice in relation to his 1998–99 self‑assessment after an enquiry opened on 5 January 2001 remained unresolved. The Tribunal found HMRC had not shown objectively reasonable grounds for continuing the enquiry, noting HMRC had not used statutory or Tribunal powers to obtain withheld privileged "Tax Advice Material" and that the taxpayer had been cooperative. The Tribunal directed HMRC to issue a closure notice stating its conclusions within 30 days (by 7 February 2010).

Jigsaw Wholesale Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 164 (TC) 13 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether duty-suspended beer consigned from the UK to a bonded warehouse in France had arrived so as to avoid an excise duty point. The Tribunal found the returned documentation was not a proper receipted AAD and the French authorities confirmed non-delivery, so an excise duty point arose in the UK and HMRC’s assessment for £26,106 was upheld. The appellant’s reliance on Teleos (a VAT good-faith principle) was rejected.

Mexcom Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 163 (TC) 13 April 2010 Mexcom was assessed to UK VAT on a December 2004 EU acquisition of goods from ORAN Spa and challenging documents of onward supply were found to be inconsistent or fabricated. The Tribunal held the acquisition was chargeable to UK VAT (partly because a UK VAT number was used) and refused Mexcom input tax credit for lack of objective proof the goods were acquired for onward taxable supplies; triangulation relief did not apply. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

Soka Blackmore Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 161 (TC) 13 April 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC’s amendment of Soka Blackmore Ltd’s 2003–04 corporation tax return, based on alleged suppressed over‑the‑counter sales and unexplained deposits in the director’s personal bank account, and an associated penalty for negligent delivery of an incorrect return. The Tribunal found some of HMRC’s concessions on review justified, rejected HMRC’s higher figures, fixed suppressed takings at £22,800 (reducing amended profits to £37,336) and upheld a 25% penalty after abatements. HMRC was directed to recalculate the tax effect under s50(8) TMA.

University of Essex v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 162 (TC) 13 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether the University of Essex, by virtue of VAT group membership with its subsidiary UAG, was using student accommodation (the Development) to make exempt supplies so as to trigger a Capital Goods Scheme (CGS) adjustment, and whether HMRC had been wrong to refuse to backdate UAG's removal from the VAT group. The Tribunal held that while UAG was a group member the University was not using the Development to make exempt supplies for CGS purposes, so no CGS adjustment was required and repayment was ordered. The Tribunal also found it had jurisdiction to hear the de-grouping challenge but dismissed the appeal against HMRC’s refusal to backdate the de-grouping.

Bannister Combined Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 158 (TC) 12 April 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of a partnership's gross payment status after partners made late self-assessment payments. The tribunal found the partners had an honestly held belief in an informal arrangement with the local inspector and longstanding cash-flow difficulties caused by late-paying public-sector clients; together these amounted to a "reasonable excuse" under paragraph 8(3) Schedule 11. The appeal was allowed and gross payment status was not withdrawn.

Emrul Islam v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 157 (TC) 9 April 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC's binding tariff information classifying mu'assel (flavoured tobacco molasses containing c.17–25% tobacco) as "smoking tobacco" (CN 2403.10) when used in a water pipe. The Tribunal heard demonstration and laboratory evidence and accepted expert findings that use as intended involves pyrolysis/combustion producing particulate-containing smoke. Applying GIRs 1 and 6, the Tribunal held the product falls within the CN heading for smoking tobacco and dismissed the appeal.

Jigsaw Wholesale Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 156 (TC) 9 April 2010 Jigsaw Wholesale appealed an excise duty assessment of £75,531.07 and HMRC's revocation of its WOWGR registration after original AADs for three consignments were found in a lorry cab separate from the goods. The Tribunal found the seized AADs were originals but did not accompany the goods, creating an excise duty point; because Jigsaw had provided the security named on the AADs, it was strictly liable for the full duty and the bank/third‑party guarantee did not limit that statutory liability. The Tribunal also upheld HMRC's revocation of the WOWGR registration.

PIC Build Construction Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 154 (TC) 9 April 2010 PIC Build appealed six default VAT surcharges totaling £18,403.27, but the tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the surcharges. The tribunal refused to permit late‑introduced grounds of appeal that had not been notified to HMRC and found the appellant had not shown a reasonable excuse for the defaults. The company may seek permission to appeal under the tribunal rules.

Hunova-Trans KFT v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 153 (TC) 8 April 2010 Hunova-Trans KFT appealed HMRC’s refusal to restore a DAF tractor and trailer seized at Dover containing 5,069,200 concealed cigarettes. The Tribunal considered whether HMRC’s decision fell outside the range of reasonable decisions, including factors such as suspicious booking/meeting arrangements, the concealment alongside low‑value manifested goods and the scale of revenue at stake. The Tribunal found HMRC had taken relevant matters into account and that its decision was within the range of reasonable responses, and dismissed the appeal.

Peter Zacharias t/a Petros Hair and Beauty v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 152 (TC) 8 April 2010 This case concerned whether Mr Peter Zacharias was compulsorily registered for VAT from 1 September 1995, hinging on whether he traded in partnership with his wife or as a sole proprietor. The Tribunal found the partnership had been dissolved in 1995 and that Mr Zacharias traded alone from Eastcote and Harrow, so compulsory registration was proper; the appeal was dismissed and the penalty reduced to £50.

Roger L M Pratt v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 151 (TC) 8 April 2010 Mr Pratt appealed HMRC's closure notice treating a £30,000 payment as taxable. The Tribunal found he was not employed by Merrill Lynch but was engaged under a fixed‑term contract with Hays which ended by effluxion of time, and that the £30,000 was a contractual bonus payable under the assignment, not an exempt redundancy/termination payment. The appeal was dismissed and the payment upheld as taxable.

Mr Alan Humphreys v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 204 (TC) 7 April 2010 This appeal concerned an HMRC TMA notice (17 March 2009) requiring the appellant to produce bank and credit‑card statements for 2006/07; HMRC issued the notice as part of an open enquiry and the appellant appealed. The Tribunal found HMRC acted within the Taxes Management Act, that the documents were reasonably required and in the appellant’s possession or power given inadequate business and offshore account records, dismissed the appeal and ordered compliance within the specified time.

Novasoft Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 6 April 2010 Novasoft, a company controlled by Mr Brajkovic, supplied his IT services to Avecia via an agency; HMRC issued IR35 PAYE/NIC assessments for 6 April 2000 to 13 December 2002. The First-tier Tribunal applied the IR35 statutory hypothesis of a notional direct contract between Avecia and Mr Brajkovic and assessed employment status against conventional factors. The Tribunal concluded the notional contract showed an overall picture of self-employment and allowed Novasoft’s appeals in full. HMRC reserved its position on PAYE/NIC and interest and may seek permission to appeal on points of law.

Pet Street Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 149 (TC) 6 April 2010 Pet Street Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to allow £7,943.11 of pre‑registration VAT input tax claimed in its first return, arguing the disputed supplies (website development, software, marketing and PR between Jan–Jun 2007) were goods or within the pre‑registration reclaim period. The First-tier Tribunal held the supplies were bespoke services (not goods), were supplied more than six months before the effective date of registration (1 March 2008), and so the input tax on those supplies was time‑barred; the appeal was dismissed with £587.11 allowed for items within the three‑year goods limit.

FCE Bank Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 136 (TC) 1 April 2010 FCE Bank Plc appealed HMRC's refusal of group relief for the year to 31 Dec 1994 on the basis that Article 24(5) of the 1975 US‑UK Double Taxation Treaty prohibits discrimination where a UK resident company is directly owned by a US resident parent. The Tribunal held that the statutory denial of group relief depended solely on the parent being US‑resident and thus amounted to prohibited discrimination under Article 24(5). The appeal was allowed (except for a 10‑day period in December 1995 when no group relationship existed) and the decision was applied as a lead to related appeals.

Maplin Electronics Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 143 (TC) 1 April 2010 Maplin appealed HMRC's tariff classification of a portable dual-tuner digital TV USB "Stick" supplied with cables, remote and software, arguing it was an "electronic assembly for incorporation into automatic data-processing machines" (CN subheading 85287111) and thus duty-free. The Tribunal found the Stick was a separately housed, portable device designed for temporary exterior connection to a PC and gave it a distinct character. Applying the terms of the CN subheadings and classification rules, the Tribunal held the Stick did not qualify as an "electronic assembly for incorporation" and therefore rejected Maplin's argument. The appeal was dismissed and the product remained classified under CN subheading 85287119 (subject to costs applications).

McGee Associates v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 144 (TC) 1 April 2010 McGee Associates appealed HMRC's refusal to repay or credit VAT overpayments where completed VAT returns claiming input tax were submitted in 2008 for periods with assessments and payments made in 2001–2003. The Tribunal held the claims were made more than three years after the relevant date under s.80 VAT Act and therefore time‑barred, with no discretion to extend the statutory limitation. The appeal was dismissed.

Talentcore Limited t/a Team Spirits v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 148 (TC) 1 April 2010 This appeal concerned whether Talentcore’s consultants were “agency workers” for PAYE/NICs purposes for 1998–2007, focusing on whether the consultants were under an obligation to render personal services and whether clients had a right of supervision, direction or control. The tribunal found that, in practice and contractually, consultants had an unfettered right of substitution so there was no obligation to render personal services, and although clients had a right of supervision or control in principle, the statutory agency‑worker provisions did not apply. The appeal was allowed and the PAYE/NICs assessments were set aside.

Moto Self Drive (UK) LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 142 (TC) 31 March 2010 Moto Self Drive (UK) LLP claimed input VAT on an Aston Martin and a Range Rover but the Tribunal found the vehicles had not been supplied to Moto and refused the input tax claim. Because the Supply Appeal failed, the Tribunal did not need to decide the Blocking Order Appeal, though it made adverse findings on credibility, ownership, insurance and the non‑arm’s‑length nature of rentals.

Joseph Hannigan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 141 (TC) 30 March 2010 This was a costs hearing after the Tribunal had allowed Mr Hannigan's appeal only on the Class 2 national insurance contribution issue and struck out the rest. The Tribunal held its power to award costs was limited by transitional provisions to what the Special Commissioners could have ordered before 1 April 2009, requiring wholly unreasonable conduct connected with the hearing. Applying that test, HMRC's post‑appeal review and timely withdrawal of the NICs claim were reasonable, so Mr Hannigan’s costs application was dismissed.

Premier Joint Ventures Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 135 (TC) 29 March 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's refusal to allow an input VAT deduction for four boxes of Intel CPUs where HMRC relied on a freight‑forwarder inspection note and Intel's confirmation that recorded box/lot numbers did not match goods it supplied. The Tribunal held the officer's decision to disallow the claim was reasonable on the information available at the time, found the appellant had not discharged the resulting evidential burden and dismissed the appeal. The appellant's later open‑box report was not accepted as displacing the earlier doubts.

(1) Areva T & D Protection et Controle(2)Canal + (3)Gilead Sciences Inc (4)Lockton Insurance Agency Inc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 134 (TC) 26 March 2010 This case concerns four overseas traders who challenged HMRC’s FACEVET procedure for processing VAT refund claims under the Eighth (EU) and Thirteenth (non‑EU) Directives. The Tribunal held that FACEVET’s documentary and timing requirements did not unlawfully discriminate and that none of the four claimants had validly "made" their refund applications within the applicable regulatory time limits because required documents were not submitted by the deadlines. All four appeals were dismissed.

B & E Security Systems Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 146 (TC) 26 March 2010 This appeal concerned whether costs of constructing and altering a bespoke control room to house surveillance plant and equipment were "capital expenditure on plant" because the alterations were incidental to installation under the relevant capital allowances provision. The Tribunal found a sufficient factual nexus between the plant and the control-room works, that the works were required by contract/standards, and that the identified construction costs (£61,173) were not disproportionate to the plant installation. The appeal was allowed and those alteration costs were treated as incidental and within the statutory provision.

Dennis Albert Gardner t/a Gardner's Transport Co v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 133 (TC) 26 March 2010 This case concerns Mr Gardner’s application (10 Dec 2009) for leave to appeal out of time against a VAT assessment said to have been made on 1 July 1980 for the period to 31 Mar 1978, which HMRC opposed. The Tribunal found the appeal to be very stale (decades old), most pleaded grounds lacked merit or lay outside the Tax Chamber’s jurisdiction, and key facts could not now be fairly resolved. The application for leave to appeal out of time was struck out as having no reasonable prospect of success.

Moneygram Payment Systems, Inc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 132 (TC) 25 March 2010 This appeal concerned whether MoneyGram Inc, a Delaware company operating in the UK solely via UK agents, carried on a money service business in the United Kingdom and so was liable to register premises and pay token civil penalties under the Money Laundering Regulations 2003. The tribunal held MoneyGram did carry on such business in the UK through its agents, that the business was carried on at each agent/sub-agent branch accessible to the public, and that HMRC could charge registration fees to MoneyGram even where the premises were also the subject of agents' registrations; the appeal was dismissed and the £30 in penalties upheld.

Aspen Wholesale Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 130 (TC) 24 March 2010 Aspen Wholesale Ltd appealed HMRC decisions imposing enhanced WOWGR conditions, revoking its WOWGR registration, lapsing its movement guarantee and an excise duty assessment of £30,518 after inspections found trailers leaving the UK empty despite AADs naming Aspen as guarantor. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding the HMRC decisions were reasonable and proportionate, that Aspen had not shown adequate due diligence, and that Aspen was primarily liable for the full assessment rather than being limited to the amount of the bank guarantee.

Blada Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 131 (TC) 24 March 2010 Blada Ltd claimed input VAT repayments on 19 purchase transactions in March–May 2006; HMRC argued those purchases were connected to MTIC/carousel fraud and denied the input tax. The Tribunal found HMRC had proved a tax loss arising from fraudulent evasion in each chain, that Blada's purchases were connected to that fraud (directly for most deals and via contra‑traders for three), and that Blada should have known the purchases were so connected. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC awarded costs.

Mr W C Harbron v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 127 (TC) 24 March 2010 Mr Harbron appealed HMRC assessments, closure notices and penalties arising from an enquiry into undeclared bank deposits in 2004/05 and related years; he did not attend the Tribunal hearing. The Tribunal found unexplained deposits of £20,515 for 2004/05 were taxable undisclosed income, allowed limited expenses supported by evidence, confirmed assessments for 1999/2000–2003/2004 on the presumption of continuity, reduced the 2004/05 and 2005/06 closure notices and reduced total penalties to £20,546, and dismissed the appeal.

Mr John Evans v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 140 (TC) 22 March 2010 Mr Evans appealed HMRC’s disallowance of parts of his travel and secretarial expense claims and a negligence penalty. The Tribunal found he had not proved the precise figures claimed but allowed higher substituted annual allowances than HMRC proposed: £500 per year for travel and £11,000 per year for secretarial/administrative costs. The Tribunal held payments to Mrs Evans were “defrayed” despite being paid into a joint account and increased the s95 negligence penalty to 40% after adjustments.

Quex Park Estates Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 126 (TC) 22 March 2010 This appeal concerned whether input VAT on substantial refurbishment of Nursery Cottage was recoverable by Quex Park Estates Ltd where the cottage was occupied by a director. The Tribunal held s 24(3) VATA applied, disallowing input tax to the extent the accommodation was used for domestic purposes, and found 70% domestic use by the director, adjusting the assessment accordingly. The appellant’s costs application was refused.

Health Response UK v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 123 (TC) 19 March 2010 Health Response UK supplied an integrated rapid musculoskeletal service combining treatments by subcontracted registered practitioners with reporting and risk‑management services. The Tribunal held the services formed a single composite supply and, because not all parts were wholly performed or directly supervised by registered practitioners, the composite supply did not qualify for the medical exemption and was standard‑rated. The Appellant succeeded on that basis and was awarded reasonable costs.

Megantic Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 125 (TC) 19 March 2010 Megantic Services appealed HMRC's refusal to pay VAT repayment supplements for nine periods; the Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that HMRC's date‑stamping of returns was reliable, that its internal VOPS 240 payment instructions can constitute the "written instruction directing the making of the payment" under s79(2)(b), and that properly pleaded and evidenced HMRC inquiries suspended the 30‑day period. Applying those findings, the Tribunal concluded the inquiry periods meant no supplements were payable and dismissed the appeals.

West Country Vending Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 124 (TC) 19 March 2010 This appeal concerned whether sales of food from vending machines located on customers' premises are "for consumption on the premises" and therefore standard-rated for VAT, and whether the supplier's subjective intention controls that characterization. The tribunal held that where a machine is located in a canteen supplies are made in the canteen and can be for consumption on the premises, the supplier's indifference is not decisive and objective facts (including the customer's intention and the nature of the location) govern. The appellant's repayment claim was dismissed.

Pierhead Purchasing Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 122 (TC) 18 March 2010 Pierhead appealed HMRC's refusal of two excise drawback claims for export of beer, arguing it had given the required two clear business days' notice and had shown duty had been paid. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the goods left the bonded warehouse on 18 April 2008 so the required two clear business days after HMRC's receipt of notice were not satisfied, and that Pierhead failed to provide the documentary audit trail required by Notice 207/regulation 10; HMRC's refusal and its decision not to waive strict compliance were not unreasonable, so the appeal was dismissed.

Market South West (Holdings)Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 17 March 2010 Market South West (Holdings) Ltd appealed HMRC’s amendment to its 2003–04 self‑assessment, disputing the tax treatment of £179,071 of legal and professional fees incurred in planning litigation. The central issue was whether those fees were revenue (allowable) or capital (non‑allowable), depending on whether the litigation defended an existing right or created/enhanced a capital asset. The Tribunal concluded the fees related to the creation/alteration/enhancement of planning‑permission rights, which form part of the business’s capital framework, and therefore were capital expenditure. The appeal was dismissed.

Secret Hotels2 Ltd (formerly Med Hotels Ltd) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 120 (TC) 15 March 2010 This appeal concerned whether Secret Hotels2 Ltd acted as principal or as a disclosed agent when selling hotel accommodation via medhotels.com for periods 12/04–06/07, and if principal, whether onward supplies to travel agents were wholesale and outside TOMS. The Tribunal found on the factual matrix that Secret Hotels2 acted as principal, not merely agent, and rejected the alternative wholesale/TOMS exemption argument. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC awarded costs.

Cheltenham College Enterprises Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 118 (TC) 12 March 2010 This tax appeal concerned whether Hazelwell House had been "substantially reconstructed" for the purpose of Schedule 8 Group 6 Item 1 VATA after major works by the lessee. The Tribunal held that "substantially" qualifies "reconstructing", "reconstructing" can include reuse of materials, non‑structural works, services replacement and extensive repairs, and that "substantially" means "in the main" (capable of being expressed as over 50%). Applying that test the Tribunal found on the facts that Hazelwell had been substantially reconstructed, but treated the finding as preliminary because whether Note 4 was satisfied (for zero‑rating) was not decided.

Davies Software Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 117 (TC) 12 March 2010 This appeal concerned a £200 penalty for late filing of a partnership tax return where the representative partner attempted to file online on the deadline but could not because the return required third‑party commercial software; he posted a paper return the same day but it arrived late. The tribunal found the return's wording was ambiguous as to whether third‑party software was required, accepted the appellant's explanation, concluded he had a reasonable excuse, and set aside the penalty.

Starglaze Windows & Conservatories ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 119 (TC) 12 March 2010 The appellant, Starglaze, issued invoices for promotional UPVC windows it did not expect to be paid for and later attempted to reverse the VAT by an internal ledger adjustment without issuing credit notes. The FTT held that regulation 38/24 did not permit that internal document as an effective credit-note equivalent and that the appellant had not made a valid voluntary disclosure under the Commissioners' published written-claim procedure. The appeal was dismissed except for a conceded reduction, leaving a disputed liability of £9,815.38.

Mr M R Brookes v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 112 (TC) 11 March 2010 This appeal concerned a £400 penalty for filing a P35 four months late where the appellant's sole agent was hospitalised with throat cancer. The Tribunal found the agent’s illness did not amount to a “reasonable excuse,” that any reasonable excuse must exist for the whole period of default, and that delegation to an agent does not absolve the taxpayer of the filing obligation. The penalty was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Mr R J Taylor Mr N Haimendorf v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 115 (TC) 11 March 2010 This case concerns whether section 291B(1)(b) ICTA 1988 requires aggregating loan capital and issued share capital together for the 30% test or applying the 30% thresholds separately to each; the First-tier Tribunal preferred the applicants' construction that the two concepts are not to be mixed into a single apportionable unit and allowed the appeals. The Tribunal also held, for argument, that "loan capital" means debts actually incurred at the relevant date (so unadvanced but merely committed amounts do not count) and that a simple nominal measure of "issued share capital" is a workable basis for the provision. The appeals by Mr Taylor and Mr Haimendorf succeeded; HMRC may seek permission to appeal.

St John's College Oxford v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 113 (TC) 11 March 2010 St John’s College appealed HMRC’s refusal to approve proposed partial exemption special methods (PESMs) for VAT recovery on a c.£6m refurbishment of its Senior Common Room and challenged HMRC’s handling of a voluntary disclosure under an approved Special Method Override Notice (SMON). The Tribunal held that free meals to Fellows formed part of the college’s non‑economic business (not a taxable supply), required a stage‑1 exclusion of non‑economic use before Article 17 apportionment, and found each proposed PESM unfair and unreasonable, dismissing that appeal. The SMON/voluntary disclosure could not be finally quantified on the evidence and was adjourned for further hearing to determine proper attribution and the amount of input tax creditable.

(1)Colin Atkinson (2)Paul Smith (executors of the Will of William Mashiter Atkinson (decd) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 108 (TC) 10 March 2010 This appeal concerned whether a bungalow called Croftlands qualified for agricultural property relief under s.117(b) IHTA 1984 by being "occupied (by him or another) for the purposes of agriculture" throughout the seven years before Mr Atkinson's death. The Tribunal found Croftlands formed part of the agricultural tenancy, was used to accommodate a partner, and remained occupied for agricultural purposes during the relevant period despite Mr Atkinson's illness and temporary absence. The appeal was allowed and HMRC were given leave to seek permission to appeal.

Ian Dear v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 111 (TC) 10 March 2010 This case concerns Mr Ian Dear’s appeal for credit of £2,159.59 VAT after a central assessment for period 02/04; he submitted a late return years later and sought repayment. The tribunal dismissed the appeal because the claim for credit was made outside the statutory time limits. The tribunal nevertheless expressed procedural concerns about how inflated assessments are issued and disclosed but provided no remedy on those points.

Major Micros Limited (in Liquidation) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 105 (TC) 10 March 2010 Major Micros claimed large VAT repayments for 10/02 and 11/02 which HMRC selected for verification because of MTIC/carousel fraud concerns. HMRC carried out extensive enquiries (including of third parties and EU authorities) beginning 4 Nov 2002 and 4 Dec 2002, made an interim payment in Jan 2003 and full payment by CHAPS on 19 Feb 2003, but withheld a repayment supplement. The Tribunal held HMRC's enquiries were reasonable, that the statutory 30-day repayment period was suspended while enquiries were pursued, and dismissed the appeal for a repayment supplement.

Mr Adrian Waddington v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 114 (TC) 10 March 2010 This appeal concerned a £219.52 5% surcharge for late payment of self-assessed tax for 2007/08. The tribunal accepted Mr Waddington’s account that HMRC delayed processing his paper return and that HMRC’s documentation was unclear/misleading, and found he had a reasonable excuse for the whole period of default. The surcharge was discharged and ordered repaid; no costs were awarded.

Mr David S Parsons v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 110 (TC) 10 March 2010 This case concerns a self-employed stunt performer’s appeal against HMRC assessments disputing deductions for medical, chiropractor/massage, dental and general health & fitness expenses for years ending 5 April 2003–2006. The Tribunal accepted the appellant’s evidence and held that medical treatment for a work-related knee injury, chiropractor and massage treatments necessitated by work injuries/physical demands, and dental treatment for teeth injured in performances were deductible as incurred wholly and exclusively for the trade. General health and fitness expenses (e.g. gym and boxing classes) were held not to satisfy the "wholly and exclusively" test and were disallowed. The appeal was therefore allowed in part.

NVM Private Equity Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 106 (TC) 10 March 2010 NVM sought an extension of time to appeal HMRC's refusal of VAT repayment claims for supplies to VCTs; the Tribunal refused the extension. The Tribunal found NVM did not request reconsideration, was not misled by HMRC correspondence or KPMG advice, and had deliberately delayed pursuing an appeal from at least 15 October 2008. The application was held not to have been made promptly and no good reason for the delay was shown.

Peter Wakeman v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 107 (TC) 10 March 2010 Mr Wakeman appealed HMRC’s refusal to restore 5,200 cigarettes and 5kg hand-rolling tobacco seized on his arrival from Spain. The tribunal found he purchased the goods for his and his girlfriend’s personal use, that there were exceptional reasons why condemnation proceedings had not been pursued, and that the HMRC review decision (by Mr Harris) was unreasonable. The tribunal allowed the appeal, remitted the matter for a fresh independent review taking account of the finding of own use, and made no order as to costs.

Greenbank Holidays Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 109 (TC) 8 March 2010 Greenbank Holidays bought Keyline’s camping business in September 2003 and recorded substantial goodwill, then claimed tax relief under Schedule 29 (Finance Act 2002). The tribunal held that Schedule 29’s term “goodwill” adopts the accounting meaning and therefore covers both purchased and internally generated goodwill, but the goodwill in this case was not created by Greenbank after the 1 April 2002 commencement date — it was internally generated by Keyline before commencement. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC’s denial of the paragraph 10 deduction was upheld.

John Cameron v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 104 (TC) 8 March 2010 Mr Cameron sold farming assets and filed a 2005/06 return received 4 September 2006, then submitted an amended return on 28–29 January 2007 containing an election under FA 2002 s.98(2)(a). HMRC refused relief because the s.98 election must be made on or before the date the original return is delivered. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, holding the statutory phrase refers to delivery of the original return, so the January 2007 election was out of time.

Wolverhampton Jeep Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 116 (TC) 4 March 2010 This appeal concerned whether input VAT was recoverable on 21 Chrysler vehicles supplied to the dealer for demonstrator and/or courtesy use between 1993–1997. The tribunal found the vehicles were supplied for the dual purpose of demonstration and courtesy use and not acquired for the purpose of sale. Applying paragraph 7(1) of the 1992 Order, input tax was not recoverable and the appeal was dismissed. No costs order was made.

Aspen Wholesale Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 103 (TC) 3 March 2010 This case concerned HMRC decisions imposing additional WOWGR conditions, revoking Aspen Wholesale’s WOWGR registration, lapsing its financial security, and assessing excise duty after two alleged irregular duty‑suspended consignments. The Tribunal found Aspen had increased dispatches, performed only limited due diligence, and that two vehicles left the UK unladen, justifying HMRC’s actions. The Tribunal held Aspen, shown in Box 10 as guarantor, strictly liable for the full £30,518 assessment and dismissed the appeal.

Brayfal Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 99 (TC) 3 March 2010 This appeal concerns Brayfal Ltd's claim to recover input VAT which HMRC refused on the basis the transactions were connected to MTIC "contra‑trading" fraud involving Future Communications Ltd. The tribunal confirmed fraudulent tax losses in Future's deal chains and that Brayfal's transactions were referable to those losses, but the judicial members split: the judge found Brayfal (through Mr Kibbler) knew or had the means of knowing of the fraud, while the lay members found Brayfal had taken reasonable steps and was innocent. The result was that the appeal was substantially allowed for Brayfal, but input tax was reduced in respect of one purchase because Brayfal had not paid the full consideration.

Ian Robertson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 102 (TC) 3 March 2010 This appeal concerned a DIY refund claim by Ian Robertson for VAT overcharged on qualifying conversion works at Park Cottage; the Tribunal accepted the supplies qualified for the 5% reduced rate. Many invoices fell outside the statutory three‑year recovery period in s.80(4) VATA 1994, and the Tribunal held it had no power to override that cap. HMRC were therefore not liable to refund the difference between the standard‑rate VAT actually charged and the reduced rate where suppliers could not reclaim, and the appeal was dismissed.

Future Components Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 101 (TC) 2 March 2010 Future Components claimed a VAT repayment; HMRC carried out checks including a telephone call and a visit, then authorised and paid the repayment within a period which HMRC treated as including an excluded "inquiry" period. The Tribunal held the HMRC activity (telephone call, visit and verification) did amount to an "inquiry" for the purposes of excluding time from the 30-day relevant period, and that, after excluding that inquiry period, the repayment fell within the 30 days so no repayment supplement was payable. The appellant's appeal was dismissed.

H & I Toiletries Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 100 (TC) 2 March 2010 This appeal concerned default surcharges imposed on H & I Toiletries for multiple late VAT returns and payments between 2006 and 2008. The company relied on cash‑flow problems, withdrawn credit insurance and exchange‑rate difficulties as a "reasonable excuse." The Tribunal accepted the director was credible about collection difficulties but found those commercial cash‑flow issues did not amount to a reasonable excuse and confirmed the surcharges. The appellant may seek permission to appeal under Rule 39.

Antique Buildings Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 97 (TC) 1 March 2010 Antique Buildings Ltd owned a helicopter made available to its director for mixed business and private use; the director obtained Chapter 3 ITEPA deductions for business use and the company appealed HMRC assessments of Class 1A NICs. The Tribunal held that a deduction actually made under Chapter 3 was not an "excluded provision" for s 10(7) SSCBA and therefore could reduce the employer's Class 1A NICs liability. The appeal was allowed and the Class 1A liability was reduced as set out in the decision.

Brenchley Civil Engineering Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 96 (TC) 1 March 2010 Brenchley Civil Engineering Ltd appealed HMRC’s requirement (5 Jan 2009) to provide VAT security of £105,428.25. The Tribunal found HMRC had reasonable grounds to require security given links between the company’s controllers and earlier insolvent VAT-defaulter companies, breaches of a time-to-pay agreement, and repayments to insiders while VAT remained unpaid. The Tribunal also held the quantum of the security was not unreasonable and dismissed the appeal.

Stanford Management Services Limited Mr Stephen Readings Mr John Readings v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 98 (TC) 1 March 2010 This appeal concerned whether two Mercedes cars leased in the company’s name and used by director‑drivers amounted to taxable employment car benefits and whether asserted nominee/agency arrangements meant the directors, not the company, held the leases. The Tribunal found the statutory conditions in ITEPA 2003 for a car benefit were satisfied, rejected the nominees/agency argument for lack of executed and operative arrangements, and upheld HMRC’s assessments for car benefit tax and Class 1A NICs. The appeals were dismissed.

Mr Greville Duncan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 95 (TC) 26 February 2010 This case concerned whether a car dealer must include the monetary value of a part-exchange vehicle when calculating VAT on a sale that was paid partly in cash and partly by part-exchange. The tribunal held that at the time of supply the taxable value of consideration includes non-monetary elements such as the part-exchange, and dismissed Mr Duncan’s appeal.

Susan M Fleming (Representative Partner of Paul Kingston Furniture) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 94 (TC) 25 February 2010 This appeal concerned £100 late‑filing penalties imposed on a partnership (represented by Susan Fleming) and on partner Paul Kingston after a partnership tax return was filed late. The tribunal found the representative partner's appeal covered all partners, rejected medical and software‑cost arguments as reasonable excuses, and concluded there is no basis for capping partnership late‑filing penalties at the amount of tax due. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties confirmed.

Barnsley Metal Company Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 93 (TC) 24 February 2010 The appellant claimed £54,464 input tax for scrap metal purchases alleged to have been made from SHS Ltd; HMRC reassessed and the First-tier Tribunal heard the appeal in the appellant's absence after proper notice. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant had not proved the taxable supplies took place, noting missing corroborative documents, doubts about the supplier's address and VAT status, and lack of permission to self-bill. The assessment was upheld, the appeal dismissed, and the appellant ordered to pay the respondents' hearing costs.

Leslie Smith v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 92 (TC) 24 February 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Smith's accounts for 1998–2002 complied with applicable accounting standards and thereby showed a true and fair view, and whether HMRC had made valid "discoveries" and could issue extended assessments relying on negligent conduct by his accountants. The tribunal found the accounting treatment (recognising income only on customers' valuation certificates and minimal WIP) did not comply with SSAPs/FRSs and did not give a true and fair view for 1998–2002, allowed HMRC's discoveries for those years (and 1998–1999), and treated the accountants' failure to prepare GAAP‑compliant accounts as negligent conduct enabling extended assessments. Appeals for 1995–1997 were allowed.

1-4-All Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 91 (TC) 23 February 2010 1-4-All Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to repay input VAT for period 09/07, based on an alleged purchase from Yaadain Ltd of a childcare licence/education pack. The First-tier Tribunal found the appellant produced only word‑processed documents and no contracts, bank statements, registration or commercial evidence and therefore failed, on the balance of probabilities, to prove the underlying supply or that it related to its business. The appeal was dismissed and the input tax disallowed; no costs were awarded.

Brett Convery v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 90 (TC) 23 February 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Convery was an employed earner with G O'Brien & Sons Ltd (or any named individual) when he fell from a roof on 22 October 2002 and so entitled to Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit. The First-tier Tribunal found the Company was not a contractor on the job, rejected that Mr Convery had a contract of service with the Company or with any named individuals, and disallowed the appeal, confirming HMRC's decision of 7 November 2006. The Tribunal also held it could not substitute a different named employer in the decision or advise on pursuing an amended disablement claim.

Mr Swift v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 88 (TC) 22 February 2010 This appeal concerned whether a UK resident member of a Delaware LLC (Sandpiper Partners LLC) was entitled to double taxation relief because the same profits were taxed in the US. The Tribunal found as a fact that, under the LLC operating agreement, members had an interest in profits as they arose (profits were allocated to members' capital accounts) and therefore the UK tax was computed by reference to the same profits taxed in the US; the appeal was allowed in principle, giving credit for US federal tax and unilateral relief for Massachusetts tax. The Tribunal also addressed and rejected HMRC's alternative arguments on the facts, but said that if its primary finding were wrong HMRC would have been entitled to make discovery assessments and s 739 would not have given relief.

David Michael Fryer, Tracey Jane Marsh and Jayne Arnold (Personal Representatives of Patricia Arnold deceased) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 87 (TC) 17 February 2010 This case concerned whether Mrs Patricia Arnold's omission to take retirement benefits under an NPI pension plan amounted to a disposition under s 3(3) IHTA 1984, and if so when and how it should be valued. The Tribunal held the continuing omission was a disposition made at the latest time the right could be exercised (the date of death, 30 July 2003), that the omission is to be treated as deliberate unless the personal representatives show otherwise, rejected the s 10 defence, and assessed the value of the right at £89,850; the Notices of Determination were varied accordingly and the executors' appeal dismissed.

Christopher John Sims v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 73 (TC) 16 February 2010 This appeal concerned Mr Sims’ claim for repayment of alleged overpaid VAT arising from use of the VAT Flat-rate Scheme and whether the three-year cap in section 80 VATA 1994 barred recovery. The tribunal held section 80(1) applied, treating the overpayment as output tax brought into account and that the relevant three-year period runs from the end of the accounting period in which the tax was accounted. Counting back from the appellant’s 15 August 2008 claim meant amounts before 09/05 were time-barred, so the appeal was dismissed.

R D F Management Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 74 (TC) 16 February 2010 RDF appealed HMRC's decision withdrawing its VAT Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) authorisation from its registration date (5 Oct 2007), HMRC's subsequent VAT assessment for unpaid VAT, and a misdeclaration penalty. The tribunal found RDF and Bored Bar Engineering Ltd (BBE) were associated (closely bound financially, economically and organisationally), upheld HMRC's backdating and assessment as reasonable under the regulations, and confirmed a penalty was payable but reduced it to £3,071.25. The appeal was otherwise dismissed and the VAT assessment of £17,546 was upheld.

Earthshine Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 67 (TC) 12 February 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's late application during a multi-day VAT hearing to admit newly discovered emails and a later witness statement. The Tribunal found the emails and Mr Stone's 2010 statement relevant to assessment of Mr Sharp's evidence and to the appellant's knowledge, and admitted them, but excluded a 2005 police witness statement as unnecessary without calling its author. Directions were given for recall of Mr Sharp, potential rebuttal evidence and a timetable for reconvening.

PCCI Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 65 (TC) 12 February 2010 PCCI sought repayment of input VAT on three mobile‑phone purchases; HMRC refused, alleging the purchases formed part of a carousel fraud. The Tribunal found documentary evidence linked the deals to a wider fraudulent scheme, rejected imputation of a third party’s knowledge to the company, held that PCCI’s controlling mind (Mr Padhani) should have realised the transactions were probably connected with VAT fraud, and dismissed the appeal.

Regent Commodities Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 68 (TC) 12 February 2010 Regent Commodities appealed HMRC's refusal to repay input tax for 15 transactions in April 2006. The First-tier Tribunal found that those transactions were connected to fraudulent VAT losses created in contra‑trading chains and that Regent (through Mr Belfield) knew of that connection. The tribunal therefore dismissed the appeal and upheld HMRC's disallowance of the disputed input tax. Other parts of Regent's April‑2006 claim remained under extended verification.

Space 2 Build Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 66 (TC) 12 February 2010 Space 2 Build Ltd appealed VAT assessments totalling £31,210 relating to refurbishment works at 20 Roland Way, arguing the works were supplied pursuant to a partnership and not liable to VAT and that an earlier Customs letter created a legitimate expectation not to charge VAT. The Tribunal found the contractor performed the works under a separate tender/contract with Dunster Holdings Ltd and was paid contractual sums (not a profit share), held the works were a VATable supply, and rejected the legitimate expectation argument. The appeal was dismissed and the assessments upheld.

David Leslie Skinner t/a DLS Packaging v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 64 (TC) 11 February 2010 This appeal concerned Mr Skinner's request that HMRC back-date his admission to the VAT flat‑rate scheme from 2009 to 2003. HMRC admitted him only from 1 January 2009 and refused retrospective admission for periods already accounted for absent exceptional circumstances. The Tribunal found HMRC's exercise of discretion reasonable, rejected the argument that HMRC had a duty to advise him he was overpaying, and dismissed the appeal.

VIP (Scotland) Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 63 (TC) 10 February 2010 This case concerned seven VAT repayment claims by VIP (Scotland) Ltd for mobile-phone transactions that passed through same-day back-to-back chains characteristic of MTIC/carousel fraud. The Tribunal found the importer defaults were fraudulent, and that VIP and its director (Mr Young) knew or ought to have known the transactions were likely tainted because they failed to take proportionate precautions and ignored specific HMRC warnings. The appeal was dismissed, repayment claims refused and costs awarded to HMRC.

BJH Building and Plumbing v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 60 (TC) 9 February 2010 This appeal concerned an application for a closure direction under TMA 1970 s12B(5) in relation to a 2006/07 partnership return. The Tribunal found HMRC had validly opened the enquiry and had reasonable grounds to continue it given apparent inconsistencies in invoices and purchases, so it refused the closure application. The Tribunal also declined to order closure within a specified period because timing for obtaining further evidence was uncertain.

Stirling Investments v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 61 (TC) 9 February 2010 This case concerned a VAT assessment of £91,875 imposed after a company invoiced a related partnership £525,000 plus VAT for "management fees" which the parties later said was an error and that the payment was really a dividend. The First-tier Tribunal found on the facts that the invoicing was a true error and that no substantial taxable supply of services occurred, so the partnership's appeal was allowed and the assessment reversed; no costs were ordered.

E & M Pankhurst t/a Mays Terracotta v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 59 (TC) 8 February 2010 The tribunal dismissed E & M Pankhurst t/a Mays Terracotta’s appeal against a 10% VAT default surcharge of £1,770.56 for period 07/08, finding their payments arrived after the effective due date (including the 7‑day grace). The appellants’ explanation (misunderstanding the grace period and cheque lodgement timing) did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The tribunal noted prior defaults and that Time To Pay agreements do not prevent surcharges, and it urged HMRC (non‑bindingly) to consider instalments for payment where waiver is not possible.

Ms Sian Williams v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 86 (TC) 8 February 2010 This appeal concerned a BBC newsreader's claims for tax deductions for hairdressing, studio clothing and laundry under s.336 ITEPA and alternatively for capital allowances under s.36 CAA. The Tribunal found the clothing and hairdressing were ordinary civilian items with mixed personal use and not incurred "wholly, exclusively and necessarily" in performing duties, and that the clothing was not "plant or machinery." The appeal was dismissed.

Terence Bruns t/a TK Fabrications v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 58 (TC) 8 February 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of the appellant's Construction Industry Scheme gross payment status, said to be justified by a late payment on account and missing contractor monthly returns. The Tribunal found no failure to submit returns, held the late payment fell outside the 12‑month qualifying period relied on by HMRC, alternatively accepted reasonable excuses (cash‑flow and serious personal/family health problems) and that withdrawal would be disproportionate, and accordingly quashed HMRC's determination.

Aidinas Ivanavicius v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 83 (TC) 5 February 2010 This case concerned two vehicles seized by Customs carrying large quantities of cigarettes and alcohol; HMRC refused restoration and the owner appealed. The Tribunal found the seizures lawful and goods liable to forfeiture, upheld refusal to restore the Minibus (ECU 182) but directed HMRC to carry out a further review of restoration in respect of the Sprinter (ECU 256) because that refusal was unreasonable.

Mr George Duckett v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 57 (TC) 5 February 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC's self-assessment for 2007/08, principally whether trading losses from the appellant's picture-framing activity could be carried forward or set against other income, and whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for late payment attracting a 5% surcharge. The Tribunal held the losses could not be used against general income (relief against general income requires a timely election and is limited to current/preceding year) and that ignorance of the law was not a reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's tax, interest and £36.27 surcharge calculation was confirmed.

Express Agency v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 55 (TC) 3 February 2010 Express Agency appealed a penalty for filing its 2007/08 partnership return late, having submitted a paper return after HMRC's deadlines and after unsuccessful attempts to use HMRC's online system. The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse for late filing and dismissed the appeal, rejecting reliance on an unexplained HMRC concession in a separate case as insufficiently identical to excuse the appellant.

Leslie Livingstone v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 56 (TC) 3 February 2010 This appeal concerned a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) served on Mr Leslie Livingstone for £60,428.57 of unpaid Class 1 National Insurance contributions of Mirekirk One Ltd. The First-tier Tribunal held that "neglect" under the PLN regime is to be assessed by an ordinary negligence / reasonable-person test and found that Livingstone, as sole director, was neglectful in permitting PAYE/NIC withholdings not to be paid and in failing to apply available sale proceeds to HMRC. The appeal was dismissed and the PLN upheld.

Philip George Turberville v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 69 (TC) 3 February 2010 This appeal concerned whether Mr Philip Turberville ceased to be ordinarily resident in the UK when he moved to Dallas on 1 July 2001 and whether he was ordinarily resident for 2001–02 and 2002–03. The tribunal found a distinct break in ordinary residence around 1 July 2001, so he was not ordinarily resident thereafter; because he was ordinarily resident for part of 2001–02 the tribunal treated the whole 2001–02 year as ordinarily resident, but held he was not ordinarily resident for 2002–03.

Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd Karen Bullock, Dorothy Bush, Judith Darbyshire, Helen Kidd, Sharon Lowes, Michele Mott, Hayley Ridley, Laura Wright v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 54 (TC) 2 February 2010 The tribunal considered whether Weight Watchers Leaders were employees or self-employed for 2001–02 to 2006–07 and found that, on the documented terms and actual conduct, Leaders were engaged under relationships characteristic of contracts of service. The tribunal upheld HMRC's Regulation 80 determinations and related National Insurance decisions and dismissed the appeals (two absent appellants stood over).

Dr Andreas Helmut Tuczka v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 53 (TC) 1 February 2010 Dr Tuczka, an Austrian national who moved to London in 1997, disputed HMRC's determination that he was ordinarily resident in the UK for 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The Tribunal found he was resident and had, during 1998-99, adopted UK residence voluntarily for the settled purpose of his employment and remained ordinarily resident for the subsequent years. HMRC's determination was upheld and the appeal dismissed.

Edward Chatterton v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 147 (TC) 1 February 2010 This appeal concerns the withdrawal of Edward Chatterton’s Gross Payment Status under the Construction Industry Scheme after multiple late tax payments in the qualifying period 19/07/07–18/07/08. The First-tier Tribunal found the Appellant non‑compliant with the CIS tax compliance test and rejected his reliance on an earlier large bad debt as a reasonable excuse for the late payments. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

Helena Housing Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 71 (TC) 1 February 2010 Helena Housing Ltd appealed HMRC assessments arguing refurbishment costs were deductible against Schedule A rental income and that it had charitable status from incorporation until 30 November 2004. The Tribunal found the refurbishment expenditure arose from obligations under a Development Works Agreement and therefore related to a Schedule D business, not Schedule A, and it ruled Helena was not established for exclusively charitable purposes in the periods in question. The appeal was dismissed.

Corriform Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 52 (TC) 29 January 2010 Corriform Limited appealed a £500 civil penalty for late EC Sales Lists for periods 03/08, 06/08 and 09/08. The company said its cashier left in April 2008 and an accountant was later instructed, but HMRC had supplied duplicate forms and correspondence. The Tribunal found the first delay might be explained by the departure but was not remedied promptly and therefore did not constitute a reasonable excuse, and there was no reasonable excuse for the subsequent defaults. The appeal was dismissed and the £500 penalty upheld.

Active8 Alarms Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 48 (TC) 28 January 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC’s refusal of input VAT claimed on an invoice from Sensor Technologies for 500 alarms and a related s.60 VAT penalty. The First-tier Tribunal found the ST invoice was fabricated, there was no believable supply entitling the claimant to input tax, and the presentation of the invoice was dishonest so the s.60 penalty and mitigation were upheld. The appeals against disallowance of input tax and against the penalty were dismissed.

BAA Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 43 (TC) 28 January 2010 This case concerned whether input VAT incurred by ADIL, a special-purpose bid/acquisition vehicle that joined the BAA VAT group with retrospective effect, was recoverable. The Tribunal found ADIL carried on an economic activity from inception because it performed management and financing functions, and held that, by reason of VAT grouping and the principle of fiscal neutrality (as applied in Faxworld-related reasoning), ADIL could take advantage of the taxable transactions of the BAA VAT group so the input VAT was recoverable. The appeal was allowed and HMRC’s assessment of c. £6.7m was disallowed; HMRC were ordered to pay the appellant’s costs.

Mrs Irene Susan Jennings v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 49 (TC) 28 January 2010 Mrs Jennings, who had a Group 5 dwelling (a log cabin) constructed with some materials she purchased directly, claimed repayment of VAT under s35 VATA; HMRC refused relying on Note 13 to Group 5. The tribunal held Note 13 does not get read into section 35 and that VAT on materials incorporated into the cabin was recoverable under s35, while VAT on construction services was not recoverable on these facts. The appeal was allowed in principle and quantification was adjourned.

Narendrasinh Chudusama v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 81 (TC) 28 January 2010 This appeal concerned a 5% surcharge for late payment of 2007–08 income tax. The Tribunal found Mr Chudusama was credible and had relied on HMRC advice, but that reliance ceased by 11 March 2009 when he knew tax was payable and he did not pay within a reasonable period. The surcharge was not set aside and the appellant remained liable, with permission to apply to appeal.

Next Generation International Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 28 January 2010 Next Generation International Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to repay £122,690.75 input VAT for August 2006, HMRC alleging the purchases were connected to MTIC fraud. The Tribunal found there was a tax loss caused by fraud (linked to UR Traders as a missing trader), the appellant's transactions were connected to that fraud, and although the appellant did not have actual knowledge it ought to have known; the appeal was dismissed.

Quality Import Export Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 47 (TC) 28 January 2010 Quality Import Export Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to repay £89,250 input VAT claimed after a zero‑rated sale of mobile phones on 30 June 2006. The tribunal found there had been VAT loss through fraudulent evasion in the related Deal Chain 51, that QIE's transactions formed part of that chain, and on the evidence inferred that QIE knew of the connection; the appeal was dismissed and repayment refused.

Enderbey Properties Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 85 (TC) 27 January 2010 Enderbey Properties Ltd had its CIS gross payment status withdrawn after a 12‑month compliance check found multiple late and non‑payments of PAYE within the qualifying period, exceeding the tolerances in the Regulations. The company relied on cashflow problems caused by a related company's liquidation, bank actions on a cross‑guaranteed overdraft, and bookkeeping/software issues; the Tribunal found no reasonable excuse and upheld HMRC’s decision. The Tribunal also held that prospective business consequences or proportionality are not relevant to the statutory decision. Enderbey may seek permission to appeal and may reapply once it meets the compliance test.

Martin Breen v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 70 (TC) 22 January 2010 Mr Breen appealed HMRC's record of his Class 2 National Insurance contributions for the period 6 April 1975 to 1 February 2003, alleging missing payments, lost stamps, and entitlement to sickness credits. The Tribunal heard evidence from Mr Breen and HMRC, found HMRC's allocation practices and records explained the apparent discrepancies (including application of a 1979 payment to an earlier year), rejected Mr Breen's loss-of-stamps and credit claims, and dismissed the appeal. HMRC's schedule of contributions therefore remained unchanged.

Mr Paul Frossell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 80 (TC) 22 January 2010 This appeal concerned daily penalties under s.93(3) TMA 1970 for alleged late submission of 2004/05 and 2005/06 income tax returns. HMRC’s records did not show receipt of paper returns and correspondence had been sent to a different address; the appellant asserted he had filed returns with multiple offices and ultimately filed online. The Tribunal found HMRC had not proved the returns were received nor that notices had effectively reached the appellant, accepted the appellant’s account as credible, and allowed the appeal by reducing the penalties to nil.

Sumanan Poopalasingham v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 41 (TC) 22 January 2010 This case concerns Mr Poopalasingham’s appeal against HMRC adjustments and discovery assessments for 2003–2006 after a VAT visit to his takeaway suggested takings were suppressed. HMRC estimated suppressed takings at £700 per week based on incomplete till rolls, bank deposits, test purchases and an invigilation period; the appellant offered late explanations and an uncorroborated lower figure of £150/week. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC’s estimate to be a fair and reasonable basis for the adjustments and dismissed the appeal.

Victor Kinsey v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 42 (TC) 22 January 2010 Mr Kinsey appealed a closure notice amending his 2004/05 self-assessment after he largely failed to provide documents requested during an enquiry. The Tribunal proceeded in his absence, accepted HMRC’s proposed disallowances of £75,085 as a fair exercise of the inspector’s judgment, and amended the return from a £56,558 loss to an £18,527 profit. The Tribunal recorded that Mr Kinsey could apply to set aside the decision or seek permission to appeal.

Brian Reynolds v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 40 (TC) 21 January 2010 Mr Reynolds, a sole-trader plumber, appealed HMRC’s refusal to allow retrospective withdrawal from the VAT Flat Rate Scheme back to 1 December 2004 after he alleged the scheme caused him to pay significantly more VAT. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC officer Mr Price’s decision, finding it reasonable to refuse retrospective withdrawal and that paying more VAT under the scheme is not an exceptional ground to justify retrospective relief. The appeal was dismissed and withdrawal was effective only from the date of application.

Howard Barnett v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 39 (TC) 21 January 2010 This appeal challenged an amendment to Mr Barnett’s 2005/06 self-assessment increasing his capital gains tax following the agreed acquisition value for a gifted maisonette. The First-tier Tribunal held the amendment was correctly calculated on the agreed 1998 acquisition cost and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also held it could not take account of a hypothetical future loss (from a proposed shares disposal) to reduce a prior-year gain, and that general complaints of unfair treatment by HMRC were not within its jurisdiction. The appeal was therefore unsuccessful.

Richard King v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 79 (TC) 21 January 2010 This case concerns Richard King’s appeal against 150 fixed penalties totalling £17,600 for 21 late monthly CIS returns (May 2007–Jan 2009). The Tribunal found Mr King did not have a “reasonable excuse” for any of the defaults, upheld the penalties, and dismissed the appeal. HMRC had reviewed the penalties and communicated the result; no further review duty was found.

Hurstbourne Properties Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 38 (TC) 19 January 2010 Hurstbourne sought to reclaim VAT input tax on building works relying on a final invoice that bore an incorrect VAT registration number and related to a non‑existent company. HMRC, after verification, disallowed the repayment and raised an assessment; its reviewer upheld that decision for lack of satisfactory alternative documentary evidence. The First‑tier Tribunal held the invoice was invalid for input tax purposes and that HMRC reasonably exercised their discretion to refuse repayment in the absence of adequate alternative evidence, dismissing the appeal and upholding the assessment.

Nimco Mohamed v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 37 (TC) 19 January 2010 This case concerns an appeal against HMRC's refusal to restore 30 items of jewellery seized as undeclared from a parcel from Dubai. The First-tier Tribunal found the jewellery was for personal use/wedding gifts, not concealed or commercial, rejected the appellant's FEDEX blame but concluded HMRC's decision-maker gave insufficient weight to those factual matters. The Tribunal held the refusal to restore was unreasonable and ordered a fresh review by a different officer.

Olympia Technology Limited (No 2) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 45 (TC) 19 January 2010 This remittal considered whether an ordinarily competent director (with knowledge attributed from senior employee Mr Jivraj) ought to have known that Olympia's purchases in fifteen straight-chain MTIC transactions were connected to fraud. HMRC bore the burden of proving on the balance of probabilities that Olympia ought to have known. The Tribunal allowed the appeal for seven deals (1561, 1565, 1566, 1568, 1574, 1575, 1576) and dismissed it for eight deals (1558, 1559, 1560, 1567, 1570, 1572, 1573, 1580), finding some customers (URTB Sarl, Paris 2000 Sarl, Polska Telefonia) had features making fraud more likely and requiring further enquiry.

B & J Shopfitting Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 78 (TC) 15 January 2010 The First-tier Tribunal allowed B & J Shopfitting Services' appeal against a £200 late-filing penalty for the 2008 partnership return, finding that the partnership's agent had reasonably relied on misleading HMRC website text and helpline advice. The tribunal held that the HMRC guidance, read in context, could reasonably be understood to apply to partnerships and that this reliance amounted to a "reasonable excuse" that persisted throughout the period of default, so the penalty was set aside.

H J Banks & Company Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 33 (TC) 14 January 2010 This case concerned whether regulation 107B (the VAT standard-method override) applied when an annual apportionment produced a material exempt input-tax figure, and if so whether HMRC’s site-area apportionment was a fair and reasonable measure. The Tribunal held that regulation 107B did apply for the year ending 28 March 2004 and that site-area apportionment was an objective, representative proxy, resulting in an adjusted input-tax charge of £61,674; the appeal was dismissed and the amended assessment upheld.

Kenneth G Colquhoun v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 34 (TC) 14 January 2010 This appeal concerned whether a £33,148.71 "buy-out" paid in 1996 was a taxable termination payment that exhausted the £30,000 tax-free exemption so it could not be used against a 2005 redundancy payment. The First-tier Tribunal held the 1996 payment was not within the statutory termination-payment charging provision because Mr Colquhoun remained in continuous employment and there was no termination, change of functions/emoluments or commutation in 1996. Consequently the £30,000 exemption remained available and HMRC’s amendment taxing the 2005 payment on aggregation with the 1996 buy-out was not upheld.

Martin Blackham v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 32 (TC) 14 January 2010 This case concerns Mr Blackham's purchase of a vehicle VAT-free under the Personal Export Scheme and the Commissioners' demand for £2,966.25 VAT after the six-month export deadline passed. The tribunal held it had only supervisory jurisdiction to review the Commissioners' exercise of discretion, found the Commissioners acted reasonably in refusing extensions where Mr Blackham failed to notify promptly, and dismissed the appeal.

Radford and Robinson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 31 (TC) 14 January 2010 This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of Radford & Robinson's gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme after missed self-assessment payments by Mr Robinson. The Tribunal held HMRC's 8 March 2009 letter did not give reasons with sufficient clarity and that effective notification was not given "without delay" (the compliance test date was 4 March 2009), so the cancellation failed the statutory requirement and the appeal was allowed. The Tribunal also found Mr Robinson's ignorance of the legal consequences of late payments did not amount to a reasonable excuse.

Wessex Continental Travel Company Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 36 (TC) 14 January 2010 This appeal concerned a tour operator who sought backdating of VAT deregistration to 1995 after an HMRC assurance visit; HMRC refused and deregistration was treated as effective from the date of the VAT7 request in January 2008. The Tribunal held that Schedule 1 para 13 VAT Act 1994 does not permit cancellation of registration with effect earlier than the day a deregistration request is made, and that HMRC assurance officers are not under a duty to give individual tax‑planning advice. The appeal was dismissed and no backdating to 1995 was allowed.

Wrag Barn Golf and Country Club v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 30 (TC) 14 January 2010 This case concerned whether an "option to tax" dated 27 June 1990 was made by the partnership carrying on Wrag Barn Golf and Country Club and whether that election was effective and irrevocable. The tribunal found that Mr and Mrs Manners, as a partnership, made the election on 27 June 1990, that the election was effective from that date and irrevocable in relation to the land, and that it binds later-admitted partners. The appeal on the preliminary issue was dismissed and remaining issues were stayed.

Desmond John Thresh v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 29 (TC) 13 January 2010 This appeal concerned whether the transfer of Plot 2 (2 Burleigh Cottages) to Mr Thresh, sole director and shareholder of Hunt's Construction Ltd, was a taxable "profit of his office or employment" (a "money's worth"). The Tribunal found the legal basis for transfer was the contract between Baxendale and the Company and that Mr Thresh had funded half the development personally in return for the plot. Assuming an undervalue, any benefit was received by Mr Thresh in his individual capacity under that funding arrangement and not by reason of his office or employment, and the benefit (if taxable) accrued on completion/transfer in 2004/05. Parties were directed to agree the financial adjustment or relist for disposal.

Flaxmode Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 28 (TC) 13 January 2010 Flaxmode Ltd (as nominated partner) appealed 14 daily penalties under s97AA(1)(b) TMA 1970 for failing to produce documents in response to s19A notices. The Tribunal held the daily penalties were civil (not "criminal" for Article 6 ECHR), that even if Article 6 applied the notices met Art 6(3)(a), the penalty determinations complied with s100(1) TMA, and that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for the two specific contested dates. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties confirmed.

The Athenaeum Club v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 27 (TC) 13 January 2010 The Tribunal considered whether Mr Becaglia was an employee of the Athenaeum Club or self‑employed for tax/NIC purposes for 2003–04 and 2004–05. It gave significant weight to an Employment Tribunal settlement which recorded him as an employee, and, on the facts (control, place of work, fixed monthly pay, lack of financial risk), concluded he was an employee. The appeals against HMRC’s Regulation 80 determinations and Class 1 NICs notice were dismissed and the sums confirmed.

First Nationwide v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 24 (TC) 12 January 2010 This appeal concerned whether two payments called Preference Dividends, paid out of a Cayman company's share premium and matched by manufactured payments under a stock loan, were "dividends" and "overseas dividends" for UK tax purposes and whether the later subscription by the taxpayer amounted to a sale-and-repurchase (repo) triggering anti-avoidance rules. The First-tier Tribunal held the payments were dividends and income in character (overseas dividends) and that the subscription did not amount to a sale-and-repurchase under ss 737A/730A, allowing the appeal.

John Taylor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 77 (TC) 12 January 2010 This appeal challenged a £100 penalty for late filing of Mr Taylor’s 2007/08 self-assessment return. The Tribunal found HMRC first received a paper return on 23/02/2009 (sent after HMRC’s 12/02/2009 call), calculated the period of default as 31/10/2008–22/02/2009 (115 days), found no reasonable excuse and dismissed the appeal. Mr Taylor’s uncorroborated assertions of timely posting were rejected. Permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal was noted as available.

Stephen Allen v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 26 (TC) 12 January 2010 This appeal contested compulsory VAT registration of Mr Allen as a partner in Gibson Telecommunications, including whether a partnership existed and when it began. The tribunal, relying on prosecution transcripts, interview notes and documentary records (bank statements, jointly signed cheques, invoices and a VAT application), found that Mr Allen and Mr Gibson carried on a business in common with a view to profit and that partnership registration should take effect from 14 October 1998. The appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

Archibald & Co Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 21 (TC) 11 January 2010 Archibald & Co Ltd, a VAT flat-rate scheme registrant who selected the "accountancy or book-keeping" sector from 1 March 2007, sought retrospective reclassification to a different, more favourable sector after providing mainly tax advisory services. HMRC refused to backdate the sector change; the Tribunal found the original selection was a reasonable self-assessment and upheld HMRC's refusal, dismissing the appeal. The Tribunal noted its role was to assess whether HMRC's decision was reasonable, not to substitute its own view of the correct sector.

Arnold Jeffers George Jeffers G & A Jeffers v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 22 (TC) 11 January 2010 This appeal challenged fixed penalties for late 2006/07 tax returns filed on 17 November 2008 though due 31 January 2008; appellants blamed prior agents for failing to file. The tribunal held that relying on an agent does not generally constitute a "reasonable excuse" and dismissed the appeals because no exceptional or unforeseeable cause outside the control of taxpayer and agent was shown.

Dale Chalk v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 23 (TC) 11 January 2010 This appeal concerned a £100 fixed penalty for failure to deliver a 2007–08 paper self‑assessment return by the statutory paper-return deadline. The Tribunal found the paper return posted on 31 January 2009 did not comply with the earlier paper-return deadline and that no reasonable excuse was proved. The penalty was confirmed and the appeal dismissed.

Enersys Holdings Uk Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 20 (TC) 11 January 2010 This appeal challenged a 5% default surcharge (£131,881) for a one-day late VAT return/payment by Enersys Holdings UK Ltd (EHUK) in January 2008. The tribunal found no "reasonable excuse" because the proximate cause was an employee error (using the subsidiary's return date), but held the penalty was disproportionate in EHUK's individual circumstances and discharged it. The tribunal treated discharge as the appropriate remedy, not mitigation, and indicated costs should follow the event in principle.

Adam Paul Mitchell v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 11 (TC) 8 January 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC's refusal to restore a Mercedes campervan seized after officers found rebated ("red") diesel in a concealed secondary tank and in the running tank. The Tribunal found the appellant had adapted the vehicle to run on red diesel, rejected his hardship claim, and concluded Officer Wiggs' refusal to restore was reasonable and proportionate. The appeal was dismissed and the refusal under s.16(4) Finance Act 1994 was upheld.

James Gillan & Margaret Gillan t/a Gracehill Golf Course v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 8 (TC) 8 January 2010 This appeal concerned whether Facility Fees paid under a 1995 Licence to an unincorporated golf club were payments for a grant of rights over land (exempt from VAT) or payments for priority use of sporting facilities (taxable). The Tribunal found the Licence granted non-exclusive, revocable priority use and control remained with the owners, so the economic purpose of the payments was to secure priority to play golf rather than exclusive occupation. The exemption for grants of rights over land did not apply and the appeal was dismissed; HMRC’s assessments were upheld.

Mark Peers t/a Always Access v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 9 (TC) 8 January 2010 This appeal concerned an HMRC assessment of £800.40 under the Hydrocarbon Oils Duties Act 1979 after rebated (red) diesel was found in one of the appellant’s business vehicles and HMRC conducted a road fuel audit. HMRC calculated a three‑year shortfall of 1,705 litres by comparing vehicle-specific mileage and objective mpg figures with fuel purchase records; the appellant failed to produce corroborating documentary evidence to rebut the calculation. The tribunal found HMRC’s methodology reasonable and dismissed the appeal, upholding the assessment.

Shaun Anthony Clark t/a Maxim v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 10 (TC) 8 January 2010 This appeal challenged HMRC’s requirement that Mr Shaun Anthony Clark (trading as Maxim) provide VAT security of £18,279.57 under Schedule 11, para 4(2) VATA 1994. HMRC relied on Mr Clark’s recent involvement in several VAT-registered companies that failed or were liquidated leaving substantial VAT debts and his director disqualification; the tribunal found HMRC had made proper enquiries and that the security requirement was reasonable. The appeal was dismissed and the security requirement and its quantum were upheld.

Supercook UK LLP & Dr Oetker UK Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 13 (TC) 8 January 2010 This case concerned appeals by Supercook UK LLP and Dr Oetker UK Ltd against HMRC assessments that choco-lolly making kits were standard-rated for VAT. The tribunal found the kits to be a single supply from an economic point of view and that the principal element was the zero-rated food components (edible buttons and icing), with moulds and sticks being ancillary. Accordingly the kits were zero-rated and the appeals were allowed; HMRC's assessments were discharged and costs were awarded to the appellants.

William Edward Lafferty t/a Bell Transport v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 12 (TC) 8 January 2010 This case concerns whether fuel reimbursements shown separately on invoices by Mr Lafferty (a sole proprietor transport operator) were disbursements excluded from taxable turnover or part of his VATable turnover. The Tribunal found there was a single supply of transport services by Mr Lafferty, that fuel purchases were integral to that supply, and that he acted as principal (or as an undisclosed agent), so the reimbursements were taxable turnover. The Tribunal decided this discrete issue against Mr Lafferty and left the remaining appeal matters open.

William J Hetherington v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 7 (TC) 8 January 2010 This appeal concerned an excise duty assessment after rebated (red) diesel was found in the appellant’s vehicle; HMRC carried out a fuel audit using mileage to estimate duty and issued an assessment reduced to £4,115. The Tribunal held HMRC was entitled to audit and that its methodology, as adjusted, was sound. The Tribunal also found the onus was on the appellant to prove legitimate non-rebated use and that he failed to discharge it, so the appeal was dismissed and no costs were awarded.

Icebreaker 1 LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 5 January 2010 Icebreaker 1 LLP received capital and made payments on 5 April 2004; HMRC issued a Closure Notice disallowing most claimed trading losses. The tribunal held that £1,064,000 of a Centre payment was not a deductible trading expense because it secured non‑trading guaranteed receipts, apportioned the remaining Centre payment between capital film production (£174,866) and a revenue prepayment (£35,000), and split the IML fee into disallowed set‑up costs (£51,000), allowable past services (£90,000) and a prepayment (£29,000). HMRC’s Closure Notice did not prevent it from advancing the points decided.

Ultrapolymers Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 5 (TC) 4 January 2010 Ultrapolymers appealed a VAT assessment of £297,872 arising from its sale of the Sovereign Buildings, arguing that exempt supplies and recoverable input tax pre-dated its October 2003 option to tax so that written permission was required. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that pre-option input tax relating to the land/building was below the de minimis threshold and could be disregarded, so automatic permission applied, the option to tax was effective, and the sale was taxable. The appeal was dismissed.

Joseph Podolsky v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 387 (TC) 31 December 2009 This case concerns Mr Podolsky's claim for a VAT refund under s.35(1C) VATA 1994 for converting Paddock House to a dwelling. The Tribunal found parts of the building had been used as a garage occupied with the farmhouse within the relevant 10‑year period, so Note 8 applied to the whole building. Because Note 8 excluded the building from being treated as a "non‑residential building" for s.35(1D), the refund claim failed and the appeal was dismissed.

Megantic Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 391 (TC) 31 December 2009 HMRC applied to admit witness evidence based on material from the FCIB server in a tax appeal by Megantic Services Ltd; the Tribunal had to decide whether prior case‑management directions and timing, statutory rules and evidential principles barred that material. The Tribunal held it retained power to permit additional evidence despite earlier directions, found the late disclosure was reasonably explained by parallel criminal processes and necessary forensic work, and admitted the FCIB material while adjourning a separate statement application and reserving costs.

Andrew Berry v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 386 (TC) 29 December 2009 This appeal concerned a tax planning package (“Gilt Strip Planning”) entered by Mr Berry designed to generate a notional income tax loss under paragraph 14A Schedule 13 FA 1996. The First-tier Tribunal held that, viewed realistically, the transactions were a single pre-ordained package in which Mr Berry did not in practice pay for or acquire a genuine economic interest in the strip and therefore did not “sustain a loss” for tax purposes. The Tribunal rejected treating the arrangements as a legal sham but found they lacked the necessary tax reality, so HMRC’s denial of loss relief and the amendment to Mr Berry’s return were upheld.

David Harper v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 382 (TC) 29 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether shares in HMS President (1918) Ltd “became of negligible value” by 5 April 2004 for loss-relief purposes. The First-tier Tribunal found the taxpayer failed to prove the shares had any positive value when subscribed in June 2002 and December 2003, preferring HMRC's valuer and contemporaneous accounts over optimistic projections. The Tribunal concluded the shares had always been of negligible value and dismissed the appeal (apart from a small admitted £610).

Derek William Hankinson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 384 (TC) 29 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether Derek Hankinson was resident and ordinarily resident in the UK for 1998–99, whether the UK–Netherlands Treaty made him Dutch resident, and whether HMRC validly raised a discovery assessment. The Tribunal found he remained resident and ordinarily resident in the UK, was treaty‑resident in the UK (tie‑breaker favoured the UK), and that HMRC’s discovery assessment was valid; the assessment of £30,003,607.65 was confirmed.

Marcus Webb Golf Professional v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 388 (TC) 29 December 2009 This appeal challenged HMRC's denial of repayment claims and their view that certain golf tuition supplied by an employed instructor was not VAT-exempt under item 2 of Group 6 (implementing Article 13A(1)(j) Sixth Directive). The Tribunal held that the Directive’s wording "given privately by teachers" requires the teacher to act independently of an employer (i.e. be self‑employed), so tuition supplied by the Appellant’s employee did not qualify for the exemption. The Tribunal also held that UK law correctly transposes the Directive and that HMRC may rely on the three‑year repayment cap. The appeal was dismissed.

Stephen John Stanley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 383 (TC) 29 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether Mr Stanley's ticket-and-coach business fell within the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) and whether HMRC's margin-based VAT assessments for 2005–2007 were made to best judgment. The tribunal held that the business was within TOMS but allowed the appeal because HMRC's assessments used an incorrect methodology that omitted ticket sales from the margin calculation. The assessments were set aside, and no costs were awarded.

Amanda Cargill & Kelly McWilliams t/a The Pende Cafe v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 381 (TC) 22 December 2009 The appeal concerned whether the sale of The Courtyard to Amanda Cargill & Kelly McWilliams constituted a transfer of a going concern (TOGC) making the purchasers VAT‑registered from 05.06.08. The Tribunal found on the facts that no TOGC occurred because the purchasers did not acquire the alcohol licence, only limited assets were transferred, and the business materially changed from a licensed fine‑dining restaurant to an unlicensed seaside café. HMRC’s voluntary registration based on an extrapolated annual turnover was unreliable because it ignored seasonality and the change in the business.

(1)Shahzad Haroon Khan (2)Fasal Haroon Khan (3)Qaiser Haroon Khan (4)Sohail Shazad(5)Xtec Communications Limited(6)Pak UK Tv Limited (7)Xtec Retail Limited(8)Newtron Marketing Limited(9)Alma Communications Limited(10)Bridge Woods Exporters Limited(11)Global 2000 Corporation Limited(12)Prime Plus Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 19 (TC) 21 December 2009 Appellants sought Tribunal directions requiring HMRC to issue closure notices under TMA/para 33 Sch 18, arguing certain 11 March 2008 letters were s.9A (or paragraph 24) notices. The Tribunal held those letters were not valid s.9A/paragraph 24 notices, that it has no power to direct closure where an enquiry was not begun by s.9A, and that for the four appellants who had valid s.9A/paragraph 24 notices there were reasonable grounds to refuse closure given ongoing linked investigations; all applications were dismissed (with leave to reapply or seek permission to appeal).

J D Wetherspoon Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 374 (TC) 18 December 2009 This Tribunal decision applies an earlier 2007 ruling to two sample Wetherspoon pubs and decides which disputed building works do or do not qualify for capital allowances as "alterations incidental to the installation of plant". The tribunal allowed items that were specifically required to enable plant to function (e.g. splashbacks provided to deal with expected splashing, cold‑store floor works incidental to drainage/pumping, certain toilet and kitchen partitions and reinforcements) and disallowed general finishes or preparatory works that are not specifically for plant (e.g. broad areas of tiling, non‑slip/wipe‑clean floors and underlying latex cement). The tribunal also held that certain lighting and associated ceiling works can qualify where they perform a trade‑specific function or are of a plant‑type, and approved a reasonable global apportionment of preliminaries. The decision resolves many specific Schedule items for the sample pubs but is not necessarily final for the whole group and permits further applications on other premises or further issues within stipulated time limits.

Carlsberg UK Limited (1) Inbev UK Limited (2) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 375 (TC) 17 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether beer duty must be calculated on each container (e.g. per can) and, if so, whether s.137(4) CEMA permits ignoring fractions of a penny at that container level. The tribunal held that regulation 17 supplies a method to ascertain volume in containers but does not require duty to be calculated per container, and that truncation under s.137(4) applies at the time the duty is payable (the duty point), so the per-container truncation argument was unnecessary and rejected.

Cormac Construction Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 380 (TC) 17 December 2009 This appeal concerned HMRC's cancellation of Cormac Construction Ltd's gross payment status after eight late PAYE payments in the 12‑month review period. The Tribunal found some of the late payments excused by the company officer's significant childcare and illness pressures but rejected a defence based on a mistaken belief about the due date. The Tribunal accepted an interpretation of Regulation 32 that effectively allows up to three late payments in the review period, so Cormac met the compliance test and the appeal was allowed.

Ghulam Hassan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 373 (TC) 17 December 2009 The tribunal considered whether two JCB loaders sold to the unregistered appellant were zero-rated as exported goods or were supplies to the UK-resident appellant on which VAT was correctly charged. Evidence showed the supplier treated the appellant as its customer, invoiced him and had no information identifying any other buyer; documentary links to the alleged overseas principal were unclear. The appellant failed to prove he acted as agent for an overseas person or otherwise satisfy the statutory requirements for zero-rating, so the appeal was dismissed and the VAT charge upheld.

Kuehne+Nagel Drinks Logistics Ltd Mr A Stott Mr A C Joyce v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 379 (TC) 17 December 2009 Kuehne+Nagel Drinks Logistics Ltd agreed lump-sum payments (£3,000 in 2006; £2,000 in 2007) to employees transferring under TUPE from S&N; HMRC treated those payments as taxable earnings and subject to NICs. The tribunal held the payments were emoluments from employment because they were paid, at least in substantial part, as an inducement to secure willing future service during the transfer, so the taxpayers' appeals were dismissed. The tribunal also held TUPE deeming did not override the separate tax/source analysis and that NICs liability followed from the same "source" test as income tax.

London & Essex Cleaning Services (Southern) v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 371 (TC) 17 December 2009 This appeal concerned estimated partnership tax assessments for 1994–95 and 1995–96 and later 2003 assessments issued to "London & Essex Cleaning Services (Southern)". The Tribunal found the entity was a partnership, held that notices sent to the partnership address and to its long‑used accountants constituted valid notice, increased the 1994–95 and 1995–96 assessable profits to the figures shown in the partnership accounts (£198,648 and £696,566 respectively) and reduced the July 2003 assessments to nil. The appeals were dismissed subject to procedural rights to set aside or seek permission to appeal.

M B C Trading Ltd Kingston Components Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 372 (TC) 17 December 2009 This appeal concerned refusals by HMRC to repay input VAT to M B C Trading Ltd and Kingston Components Ltd on the basis that their transactions were connected to MTIC/carousel fraud and that they knew or ought to have known of that connection. The First-tier Tribunal found cogent evidence (including FCIB banking records showing circularity of funds and matching invoices) that the transactions were part of a fraudulent carousel and that both appellants knew of the fraud. The tribunal dismissed the appeals and ordered the appellants to pay HMRC’s costs.

Seafield General Store & Post Office v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 18 (TC) 17 December 2009 This appeal concerned HMRC's amendments to Seafield General Store & Post Office partnership profits for tax years 1996–97 to 2004–05 and attendant penalties under s 95A(2) TMA. The Tribunal found the partners failed to keep required records, accepted HMRC's business-model/mark-up based revised profit figures (notably £55,865 for year to 30 June 2002) and applied those adjustments across the years, and upheld negligent-return penalties totalling £28,144 (Mr Nazir £16,842; Mrs Nazir £11,302). The appeal was dismissed to the extent reflected in those determinations.

Bells Mills Developments Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 390 (TC) 16 December 2009 Bells Mills failed to lodge 22 monthly CIS returns between May 2007 and Feb 2009 and HMRC imposed 205 penalties. The Tribunal rejected the company’s claim of a reasonable excuse (staffing/administrative changes and prompt disclosure) and upheld 194 fixed penalties of £100, but found the aggregate long-term penalties excessive given a single gross-status contractor and no tax loss, reducing the remaining 11 penalties to £100 each.

Fahima Begum Hussain v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 370 (TC) 16 December 2009 This appeal challenged two HMRC assessments on the basis that insufficient allowance had been made for wastage in calculating taxable profits. The tribunal found HMRC had calculated profits using the appellant’s own figures and made assessments to best judgment, and that the appellant had not produced substantial evidence that wastage exceeded the previously agreed 15% allowance. The appeal was dismissed.

Hipisol Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 392 (TC) 16 December 2009 HMRC imposed two default VAT surcharges on amounts due to late VAT returns/payments; Hipisol Ltd (via Mr Roy) appealed. The Tribunal found Mr Roy credible and that HMRC’s telephone advice on 6 July 2006 misled or ill-advised him, constituting a reasonable excuse so the £612.02 surcharge was quashed. The Tribunal also found HMRC had applied a later payment to the earlier surcharge causing an improper shortfall and quashed the £91.80 surcharge. Both appeals were allowed.

Lancers Restaurant Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 369 (TC) 16 December 2009 Lancers Restaurant appealed HMRC VAT assessments and a misdeclaration penalty for periods 05/03–05/05; HMRC had projected sales from drinks cost of goods sold (COGS) using allowances for wastage and a weighted mark‑up. The Tribunal accepted amended COGS and increased wastage from HMRC’s figure but retained HMRC’s weighted mark‑up, reducing the assessment to £18,747.90 and upholding a reduced misdeclaration penalty of £930.75 for 02/05. The Tribunal also found HMRC’s original assessment was made to the best of their judgment and not in bad faith.

Naznin Karim v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 368 (TC) 16 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether Miss Karim was UK resident and/or ordinarily resident for 2003/04 so as to be chargeable to capital gains tax on disposals of two UK properties and company shares, and whether claimed improvement costs should be allowed. The tribunal found she was resident in the UK for at least part of 2003/04, not shown to be non‑ordinarily resident for the year, rejected the unsubstantiated improvement expenditure claims, and upheld HMRC’s discovery assessment as valid on the ground of negligent nondisclosure. The appeal was dismissed.

S W McMullan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 367 (TC) 15 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether Mr McMullan was in default for late payment surcharge purposes for 2006/07 when HMRC levied a surcharge. The Tribunal found that default is assessed at the start of the relevant surcharge-assessment day and that the tax had been paid by that time (and only later refunded), so there was no default and no surcharge should have been levied. The appeal was allowed and HMRC may seek permission to appeal.

Skye Inns Limited and Mr Chris O Richards v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 15 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether 80% of a £1,536,684 subscription by Mr Richards to Skye Inns Ltd on 18 December 2001 had been "employed in the qualifying trade" by 17 December 2002 for EIS relief. The tribunal found the subscription proceeds were not so employed: cash earmarked for an uncontracted acquisition and large deposits held for future losses/improvements did not qualify as employed within the 12‑month period. The appeals were dismissed.

Sub One Limited (t/a Subway)and 91 Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 385 (TC) 12 December 2009 This case records a Tribunal case management decision in appeals by Subway franchisees (Sub One Ltd and 91 others) challenging HMRC's view that toasted sandwiches are standard-rated for VAT. HMRC sought strike-out on grounds there was no appealable decision; the Tribunal held Officer Clarke's January 2009 letter expressed a concluded view on liability and was an appealable decision, so the strike-out was dismissed. The Tribunal also decided in principle to direct a lead appeal under Rule 18 because common legal and factual issues and largely common evidence existed, and declined to apply the "Old" costs regime to appeals started before 1 April 2009. The hearing was adjourned for parties to agree a lead appeal and for further case management directions.

Benjamin James Kent v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 358 (TC) 11 December 2009 This case concerns HMRC assessments that the appellant’s transfers from two approved personal pension schemes into the Holme Plan were unauthorised because the appellant was not genuinely an employee of Holme Ltd and the Holme arrangements were a pension-liberation scheme. The Tribunal found the purported employment was a sham, upheld the assessment for tax of £18,568.15, upheld HMRC Directions excusing the trustees from PAYE liability, and upheld a 30% negligence penalty of £5,557.74.

Institute of Information Security Professionals v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 365 (TC) 11 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether the Institute of Information Security Professionals' membership subscriptions were VAT‑exempt. The Tribunal rejected that the IISP was a "professional association" under Item 1(b) but found its primary purpose was fostering and advancing professionalism in information security, bringing it within Schedule 9 Group 9 Item 1(c), and allowed the appeal on that basis. The Tribunal also ordered costs against HMRC, with quantum to be addressed.

Jane Wallace Brown v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 359 (TC) 11 December 2009 HMRC compulsorily registered Ms Brown for VAT as a sole trader for 21 April 2007–31 March 2008 after finding she continued making and selling blinds despite deregistering a company. The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s decision, finding she traded as a sole proprietor in that period, that two transfers of a going concern occurred creating continuous trading for VAT purposes, and upheld an assessment of £3,701. The appellant’s claims of cessation, lack of profit or lack of funds were rejected.

Mr Mervyn Cox Mr Michael Cox Mr Colin Cox Mr John Londal v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 51 (TC) 11 December 2009 Four taxpayers appealed HMRC decisions about postponement of tax for the year to 5 April 2005; the Tribunal held it had no jurisdiction to entertain appeals against HMRC's exercise or refusal of discretion under B(4A)(b) TMA and struck those parts out, but it did have jurisdiction under s.55(3)(b) TMA to determine postponement references. The Tribunal dismissed the postponement applications of Mr Michael Cox, Mr Colin Cox and Mr John Londal for failure to state an amount believed to be overcharged and lack of reasonable grounds, and ordered postponement of £924,000 for Mr Mervyn Cox (with a net indicated payable of £520,000). Parties may apply for permission to appeal the strike-out under the relevant rule.

Obhloise Benjamin Ogedegbe v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 364 (TC) 11 December 2009 This case concerns an application by Mr Ogedegbe for an extension of time to appeal a December 2006 VAT assessment disallowing input tax claimed by his business, Megapro. The First-tier Tribunal refused the extension because the appeal was very late and the material disclosed no arguable prospect of success on the merits. The application was dismissed and the appeal was not permitted to proceed.

Oceanteam Power & Umbilical ASA v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 361 (TC) 11 December 2009 This appeal challenged HMRC’s refusal to repay £201,250 VAT as time‑barred under Regulation 192 of the VAT Regulations 1995. The Tribunal found the claim in respect of the 15 June 2007 invoice was out of time and that Regulation 192’s six‑month limit applied, so HMRC were entitled to refuse repayment. The Tribunal also declined to determine, in this appeal, whether the supplier had been wrong to charge VAT or to order recovery from the supplier.

POWA (Jersey) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 360 (TC) 11 December 2009 PJL (Jersey) Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to repay £1,018,181.89 of input VAT on 37 purchases of computer chips, HMRC alleging the purchases were part of chains connected with VAT fraud. The Tribunal found overwhelming evidence of fraud in the antecedent chains and that PJL's due diligence was superficial or a sham; key managers knew or had the means of knowing of the connection to fraud. Applying the Kittel principles, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and refused the input tax repayment, awarding costs to HMRC.

Spot Technology Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 362 (TC) 11 December 2009 This appeal concerned the tariff classification of a rear‑view mirror screen reversing system comprising a monitor, camera and wiring. The Tribunal found the monitor, when clipped to and connected with a rear‑view mirror, becomes physically and functionally incorporated into that mirror and gives the composite item its essential character. Applying the General Rules of Interpretation, the Tribunal held the item is properly classified under Chapter 70 (glass mirrors/rear‑view mirrors) at code 8528 5990 20 and dismissed the appeal.

The Rank Group Plc v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 363 (TC) 11 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether VAT had been wrongly charged on certain gaming machine takings from 1 Oct 2002 to 5 Dec 2005 by treating some machines as taxable when comparable exempt machines (including FOBTs and /21 AWPs) were on the market. The Tribunal found those exempt machines were in commercial use throughout the claim period and comparable to taxed Part III machines from the consumer perspective, held there is no legal defence of due diligence to an infringement of fiscal neutrality, found the UK had not acted with due diligence, and allowed the appellant's claim for the whole period.

Abdul Ahad v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 353 (TC) 9 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether Mr Ahad's 1996 sale of land to Abbeygate qualified for TCGA roll‑over relief under the "compulsory acquisition" head as a disposal to an "authority exercising or having compulsory powers". The First-tier Tribunal found the Commission for the New Towns (CNT) did not have, and could not lawfully have been authorised to exercise, compulsory purchase powers for the supermarket purpose in March 1996, and that Schedule 10 NTA did not transfer MKDC's statutory compulsory purchase powers to the CNT. Consequently Abbeygate was not an "authority exercising or having compulsory powers" under s.243(5) TCGA and the roll‑over condition failed; the assessment was reduced to the agreed chargeable gain and tax due.

David Arthur Hemms v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 355 (TC) 9 December 2009 This appeal concerned HMRC's refusal to restore a motor‑home seized at Dover containing 22kg of rolling tobacco, 1,000 cigarettes and an imitation gun. The tribunal upheld the Review Officer's decision, finding the quantities, concealment and inconsistent explanations supported a reasonable inference of commercial importation and rejecting claims of exceptional hardship. The appeal was dismissed and the vehicle and goods remained forfeited.

Lion Co v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 357 (TC) 9 December 2009 Lion Co purchased and improved a freehold residential property intending to transfer it in specie to its director as a discretionary bonus, then wrote the property down in its accounts; HMRC denied corporation tax relief for those write-downs. The First-tier Tribunal held the write-downs were capital in nature and therefore not deductible, rejecting arguments that short-term ownership, purpose as remuneration, or the company's accounting treatment converted them into revenue expenditure. The tribunal also held accounting classification is relevant but not decisive and that once an item is held to be capital, recourse to s.74(1)(e) TA is unnecessary to the outcome. The appeal was dismissed.

Wieslaw Parysek t/a WP-Trans Wieslaw Parysek v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 354 (TC) 9 December 2009 This appeal concerned HMRC's refusal to restore a seized Mercedes Actros tractor unit adapted with a concealed chamber; the haulier denied knowledge and blamed the driver. The Tribunal found the adaptation was sophisticated and unlikely to be solely the driver's work, noted a very similar prior seizure of another vehicle of the same operator, accepted HMRC's view that the haulier was complicit or had not taken reasonable preventative steps, and dismissed the appeal. The vehicle was not restored.

Surestone Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 352 (TC) 8 December 2009 Surestone Ltd brought four transitional VAT appeals that began before 1 April 2009; three were withdrawn in July 2009 and HMRC sought costs. The Tribunal held it has power to make costs orders in those transitional appeals by applying the pre‑1 April 2009 (1986) VAT Tribunal Rules under paragraph 7(3)(a) of Schedule 3 to the TTF Order, but any order is limited by paragraph 7(7) so it may only be made to the extent it could have been made before 1 April 2009. The Tribunal found HMRC’s July 2009 application timely under the 1986 Rules and reserved substantive entitlement and quantum for a later hearing.

Talisman Energy (UK) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 356 (TC) 8 December 2009 This appeal concerned whether long‑term assets created to produce and transport gas from the Tweedsmuir fields (the Relevant Assets) were "used in connection with" the taxable Piper and Claymore fields so as to qualify for Petroleum Revenue Tax relief. The Tribunal held that the statutory test in s.3 OTA 1983 (read with the 1975 Act) should be given its broad, ordinary meaning and that the Relevant Assets were used, directly or indirectly, for the purpose of winning oil from Piper and Claymore. The appeals were allowed in principle and the case was adjourned for apportionment of expenditure under Schedule 1, Part II.

Deliverance Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 351 (TC) 4 December 2009 Deliverance Limited appealed HMRC's refusal of a VAT repayment, disputing whether various takeaway items were "hot food" under Note (3) to Group 1 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994. The Tribunal found the disputed items were above ambient temperature when provided and, by the chairman's casting vote, held the supplier's purpose in heating (to demonstrate freshness) amounted to a purpose of enabling consumption hot. The appeal was dismissed and the repayment claim refused.

Ductaire Fabrication Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 350 (TC) 4 December 2009 Ductaire Fabrication Ltd applied for Gross payment status but was refused after the Tribunal found it failed the statutory compliance test despite meeting turnover and business tests. The Tribunal held several filing and payment failures (notably a corporation tax payment 287 days late) were not disregarded and there was no reasonable excuse or basis to expect future compliance. The appeal was dismissed.

Daniel John Currie v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 342 (TC) 3 December 2009 This appeal concerned Mr Currie's VAT registration from 1 April 1996 and a subsequent assessment of £42,257 for the period 1 April 1996 to 31 August 2002. The Tribunal found no binding settlement or agreement with Customs that precluded the assessment and held the Commissioners' scaled assessment—based on inadequate records and the appellant's own declared/estimated turnover—was justified. The appeals against liability to register and against the assessment were dismissed and the assessment upheld.

Denwire Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 343 (TC) 3 December 2009 Denwire imported steel wire rope from China which HMRC later assessed as misclassified and subject to anti‑dumping duty; HMRC issued a demand for about £604,512. The tribunal found no relevant customs authority error under Article 220(2)(b), concluded the importer had not acted in good faith and had misdescribed/misclassified the goods, dismissed the appeal and ordered costs for HMRC.

Inayat Gulam Hussein v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 348 (TC) 3 December 2009 This appeal concerned a claim by Inayat Gulam Hussein for £72,225 input VAT for periods 12/04–06/06 supported only by invoices from five named suppliers. HMRC investigations and supplier records showed the invoices were not issued by the named traders and the traders made no supplies to the appellant. The First-tier Tribunal held the appellant failed to meet the statutory requirements to recover input tax and dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded.

Robert Walsh v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 344 (TC) 3 December 2009 This case concerns Mr Walsh's appeal against a VAT assessment for 01/2003–07/2005 based on HMRC's finding of undeclared takings from a second till and a 24% uplift to reported turnover. The Tribunal found Mr Walsh had not kept complete or proper records nor afforded adequate facilities for verification, and that HMRC acted bona fide and reasonably in making the assessment to the best of their judgment. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

SKG (London) Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 341 (TC) 3 December 2009 This decision directs a further hearing to determine whether certain statutory provisions comply with the Human Rights principle of proportionality and, if they do not, what interpretation should be adopted. The Tribunal ordered procedural directions: legally represented parties must lodge skeleton arguments four days before the hearing, parties must notify venue and scheduling preferences within 21 days, and the Tribunal will request the Attorney-General to appoint Counsel to act as Advocate to the Tribunal. The hearing will consider the proportionality issues identified in the Decision and possible alternative statutory interpretation.

Susan Frances Nike v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 3 December 2009 The appellant converted a derelict barn into a dwelling and was charged VAT at 17.5% on various contractor invoices; she claimed under the DIY builders' VAT scheme and HMRC refunded at 5% but refused to repay the excess. The tribunal found the works were qualifying services within a qualifying conversion so the correct rate was 5%, but held HMRC is only liable to refund VAT that is properly chargeable under the statute and has no discretion to repay VAT charged in excess of that statutory rate. The appeal was dismissed, leaving the appellant to pursue any private law remedy against her supplier for overcharged VAT.

Dr Joanne Clinton v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 2 December 2009 This case concerned whether a £9,662.25 lump-sum paid to Dr Clinton on termination was taxable as earnings or was a termination payment falling within s.401 and exempt under s.403. The tribunal found she had been constructively dismissed, the lump sum was a compromise/settlement of her dismissal claim (not payment under her contract or an implied PILON), and allowed her appeal, setting aside HMRC's closure notice.

Life Enterprises Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 340 (TC) 2 December 2009 Life Enterprises Ltd sought repayment of input VAT on Nokia phone supplies/exports (April–July 2006). The tribunal found those supplies formed part of chains involving contra‑traders (Xchange, Style) who knowingly took part in fraudulent evasion, that a VAT loss occurred, and that LE's transactions were connected to that fraud. On the facts the tribunal concluded LE knew or should have known of the fraud and upheld HMRC's refusal to repay the input tax and awarded costs (subject to directions).

Mr A Ouerradi v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 339 (TC) 2 December 2009 Mr Ouerradi appealed HMRC’s best‑judgment amendment to his 2005/06 self‑assessment and assessments for 2003/04 and 2004/05 after he failed to produce underlying business records for his takeaway shop. HMRC used a 60% gross profit figure derived from adverts to calculate takings; the Tribunal found that approach reasonable, held the burden of proof lay on the taxpayer to rebut the officer’s conclusions, and dismissed all appeals. The Tribunal also held the s.29 conditions for discovery of unassessed income were met.

Spedservice SP Z.O.O. v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 338 (TC) 2 December 2009 This appeal concerned HMRC review decisions refusing restoration of two trailers and a tractor unit seized after those vehicles were used in multiple incidents of cigarette smuggling. The tribunal found the HMRC reviewers acted reasonably in refusing restoration because the haulier had not demonstrated that it had taken reasonable and effective steps to prevent driver smuggling and there was no unjustifiably prejudicial delay. The appeal was dismissed.

Huntley Solutions Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 329 (TC) 30 November 2009 Huntley Solutions appealed penalties for failing to comply with paragraph 27 notices under Schedule 18 Finance Act 1998, arguing reliance on its accountants (Marriotts) was a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal held that reliance on a third party can, in principle, constitute a reasonable excuse in direct tax cases, but on the facts here the material requested was straightforward and the company unreasonably relied on its accountants. The appeals were dismissed and the penalties confirmed.

The Research & Development Partnership Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 328 (TC) 30 November 2009 This case concerned appeals against penalties imposed under para 29, Sch 18 Finance Act 1998 for failure to comply with para 27 information notices in HMRC enquiries into the Appellant's 2005 and 2007 periods. The tribunal held that reliance on the Appellant's accountants, Marriotts, could amount to a "reasonable excuse" in direct tax, and on these facts—complex R&D issues and linked group enquiries—found the Appellant had a reasonable excuse. The tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the fixed and daily penalties.

Gabbitas Educational Consultants Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 325 (TC) 27 November 2009 Gabbitas provided guardianship packages to non-EC parents of pupils at UK schools. The tribunal had to decide whether those packages were "services of consultants or similar services" under article 56(1)(c) (which would make the place of supply the customer's residence abroad) or were predominantly organisational/administrative services (place of supply in the UK). The tribunal found most elements were administrative/organisational rather than specialist consultancy, held the place of supply was the UK, and dismissed the appeal.

Mr Arash Razaie t/a Foodline Delivery Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 327 (TC) 27 November 2009 This appeal concerned a sole trader who claimed input VAT on purchases from a supplier whose invoices quoted a VAT number that did not belong to them and who was not VAT-registered; payments went to a third party and there was no delivery or corroborating supplier documentation. The Tribunal found the appellant's evidence (including a supplier‑supplied EUROPA validation print produced after trading and testimony) unreliable and held there was no persuasive evidence the supplies occurred. It concluded HMRC reasonably exercised its discretion under regulation 29(2) to refuse admission of alternative evidence and dismissed the appeal. No costs were awarded.

Prolab Nutrition Europe Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 326 (TC) 27 November 2009 Prolab imported supplements from Sportika and paid separate invoices described as "export and trademark distribution rights." The Tribunal held those payments were a condition of sale and therefore formed part of the customs transaction value, upholding HMRC's post‑clearance demand of £77,211.94 and dismissing Prolab's appeal. The Tribunal also found the payments were for exclusive territorial distribution rights (not royalties or licence fees) and that the buyer was not free to source goods elsewhere for the relevant period.

Mr R J Taylor Mr N Haimendorf v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 25 November 2009 This appeal concerned whether, for EIS disqualification under ICTA 1988 s291B(1)(b), a company's "loan capital and issued share capital" are to be aggregated into a single apportionable unit (HMRC) or treated separately (the appellants). The Tribunal preferred the appellants' construction, holding that paragraph (b) should not be read to aggregate loan capital and issued share capital and allowed the appeals, with the result that the appellants remained entitled to EIS relief on the facts. The Tribunal also held that "loan capital" does not include amounts merely committed but not actually borrowed at the relevant date.

Able UK Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 323 (TC) 24 November 2009 This appeal concerned whether VAT exemption in Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive for supplies to "armed forces" is limited to visiting NATO forces. The Tribunal held Article 151(1)(c) comprises three disjunctive exceptions and is not confined to visiting NATO forces, so the Appellant’s ship-dismantling services supplied to the US MARAD were exempt. The appeal was allowed and HMRC were ordered to pay the Appellant’s reasonable costs.

Andras Bokor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 322 (TC) 24 November 2009 Mr Andras Bokor bought timber and other component materials, cut and specified to construct bespoke decking enabling his wheelchair‑using wife to access a balcony; suppliers charged VAT and he sought a refund under Group 12, Schedule 8 VATA. The Tribunal dismissed his appeal, holding the component materials were not "equipment and appliances" designed solely for a handicapped person, paragraph (h) did not apply because it presumes pre‑existing goods rather than raw components used to construct new goods, and no relevant service brought other Items into play.

Galleria Italia Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 324 (TC) 24 November 2009 Galleria Italia Ltd appealed a Commissioners' notice requiring payment of security for VAT under Schedule 11 para 4(2), following association with a failed business and substantial unpaid VAT arrears. The tribunal reviewed but did not substitute its own discretion, found the requirement and the amount (despite a small arithmetic error) not unreasonable given arrears of over £23,000, and dismissed the appeal.

Raymond John Phillips v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 335 (TC) 24 November 2009 This case concerned whether Raymond Phillips and Philip Bintliff carried on a partnership (Studio Baad) for 1998–2003 and whether Phillips, as a non‑nominated partner, could appeal partnership amendments and consequential amendments to his personal returns. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that a partnership existed for the years in question and that a non‑nominated partner has standing to appeal consequential amendments and to challenge partnership assessments. The tribunal did not decide the substantive correctness of the partnership amendments, which remain for further proceedings.

Hochtief Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 321 (TC) 20 November 2009 This appeal concerned whether c.1,039,000 tonnes of rock excavated within the footprint of the Glendoe reservoir and used unmixed (except for water) to construct a rock‑fill dam were subject to the Aggregates Levy or fell within the s.19(3)(e) exception. The Tribunal held the quarry footprint and dam footprint formed the same "site" and that material moved within that site and again becoming part of the land was not "subjected to commercial exploitation," so the Levy did not apply and the liability appeal was allowed; the tax‑credit issue fell as academic though the Tribunal expressed the view it would have allowed the credit on the facts.

Mrs Susan Sheftz v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 316 (TC) 20 November 2009 This tax appeal concerned whether two postal parcels received by Mrs Sheftz had been imported from outside the EU (via Germany) and thus subject to UK import VAT. The Tribunal proceeded in her absence, found the parcels likely entered the EU under customs control in Germany before onward shipment to the UK, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the VAT charge.

J & W Waste Services Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 315 (TC) 19 November 2009 HMRC served a Security Notice on J & W Waste Services Ltd requiring payment of security for VAT, calculated by combining estimated future VAT (pro‑rated from prior returns) and unpaid assessed VAT; the company appealed. The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding it was reasonable for the Commissioners both to require security given the company’s defaults and associated companies’ histories, and to calculate the amount as they did.

Joseph Hannigan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 334 (TC) 19 November 2009 This case concerns Mr Hannigan’s appeal against estimated income tax assessments and Class 2 National Insurance contributions following his 2005 bankruptcy and the later submission of returns in 2008. HMRC withdrew the income tax assessments and reduced the claimed debt; the Tribunal concluded it had no jurisdiction to determine withdrawn income tax assessments or general procedural complaints but did have jurisdiction to decide and allowed the appeal on the Class 2 NICs element. All other parts of the proceedings were struck out.

Paul Maurice Roche v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 313 (TC) 19 November 2009 This appeal concerned HMRC's April 2008 Notice requiring Paul Roche to provide security for VAT under Schedule 11 para 4(2). HMRC based the Notice on a long history of late returns, prolonged default surcharge liability and a substantial outstanding VAT debt; Mr Roche produced late, incomplete and unsubstantiated evidence of assets and receipts. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that HMRC reasonably required security to protect the revenue and dismissed the appeal.

Peter Robert Balkwill v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 314 (TC) 19 November 2009 This appeal concerned whether Mr Balkwill ceased trading in 2001 or remained the VAT-registrable trader through 2004; HMRC assessed VAT and penalties based on the income tax accounts he signed, returns he filed and tax he paid. The tribunal found he gave no satisfactory explanation or corroborating evidence of a genuine disposal, upheld HMRC’s assessments (VAT £19,372; penalty £2,905) and dismissed the appeal, while expressing sympathy for his age and ill health and urging HMRC to consider enforcement options.

John Sloan v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 310 (TC) 18 November 2009 John Sloan appealed a VAT assessment of £127,241 covering mid‑2006 to early‑2007, arguing he was entitled to deduct input tax shown on invoices from two subcontractors. The Tribunal found the subcontractor invoices did not meet Regulation 14(1) requirements, there was no reliable proof of payment, and the Commissioners acted to the best of their judgment in making the assessment. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment with interest was upheld.

Michael Burton v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 320 (TC) 18 November 2009 This appeal concerned whether Mr Burton was liable for PAYE tax not deducted on earnings from Iris, hinging on whether he had delivered a P45 (or completed P46) so as to prevent Iris applying BR coding. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that no P45 or completed P46 reached Iris or its payroll agent, that Iris lawfully applied BR coding under the PAYE Regulations, and that no adjustment under reg 101A was warranted. The appeal was dismissed and Mr Burton remains liable for the underpaid tax.

Mr Andrew Whitby & Mr Victor Ball v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 311 (TC) 18 November 2009 This case concerns appeals by two directors who leased cars from their employer/associated company and received mileage reimbursements; HMRC assessed car, fuel and excess mileage payments as taxable. The Tribunal held the cars were "made available" by the employer so car benefits under Chapter 6 ITEPA applied, the vehicles were "company vehicles" so the mileage payments did not qualify as AMAPs and were taxable, and advisory fuel rates (not lease rentals) govern the non-taxable element of mileage reimbursements; s.151 nil relief applies where no private fuel was paid. The appeals were dismissed.

Mr Mervyn Gwillym Jones and Mrs Annette Elizabeth Southam v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 312 (TC) 18 November 2009 This appeal challenged HMRC's closure notice treating the November 2005 sale of 29 Bath Street as disposal of a non-business (land and property) asset, denying business asset taper relief. The Tribunal found the rental receipts were income from land and property, not trading income, and dismissed the appellants' estoppel/legitimate expectation claim against HMRC. The self-assessments were amended and additional tax determined as per HMRC.

Shakeel Ali v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 309 (TC) 18 November 2009 This appeal concerned a claim by Mr Ali for repayment of £4,375 input VAT said to have been charged on fixtures and fittings bought when he acquired a lease for a bar. The tribunal found the vendor had been de‑registered for VAT before completion, so the sale was not a taxable supply and no VAT was chargeable. Because no VAT was chargeable, Mr Ali could not recover input tax from HMRC and the appeal was dismissed.

Mediaclash Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 306 (TC) 16 November 2009 Mediaclash Ltd appealed against a 5% default surcharge for late VAT payment for period 12/08. The tribunal found the late payment was caused by loss of a major client, redundancies and their costs, delayed customer payments and cashflow pressure, and applied the statutory test for "reasonable excuse." It held that a reasonable competent businessman in comparable circumstances would not have avoided the insufficiency of funds and, on that basis, found a reasonable excuse and allowed the appeal.

Roderick Gunkel & Associates Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 308 (TC) 16 November 2009 This appeal concerned input VAT reclaimed by Roderick Gunkel & Associates Ltd on (a) a leased Edinburgh flat used for some business meetings/overnight stays and (b) relocation/refurbishment and removal costs at an employee's Balfron home. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that indirect and direct tax rules should be treated the same, allowed part of the Edinburgh claim as business-related (remitted for apportionment), allowed the removal/relocation expense (£134.77) as input tax, and remitted other Balfron items for appropriate apportionment. No costs order.

YSL Video Wall Hire Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 307 (TC) 16 November 2009 YSL Video Wall Hire Ltd appealed a 5% VAT default surcharge assessed after multiple late VAT returns/payments, arguing cash‑flow problems and reliance on a creditor's expected HMRC refund amounted to a "reasonable excuse." The First‑tier Tribunal found the evidence did not show a sufficient, reliable link to the creditor or that the shortfall was unexpected or unavoidable, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the £1,185.80 surcharge.

Heath House Charter Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 305 (TC) 13 November 2009 Heath House Charter Ltd appealed HMRC's refusal to register it for VAT after it bought a yacht and contracted Lymington Yacht Charters (LYC) to arrange charters. The Tribunal found LYC acted as agent so each charter was a supply by Heath House, and that hiring out the yacht amounted to an economic activity carried on with sufficient continuity and substance. The appeal was allowed and HMRC's refusal to register was overturned; HMRC were ordered to pay 40% of the Appellant's costs.

Brendan MacMahon t/a Irish Cottage Trading Company v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 304 (TC) 11 November 2009 This appeal concerned whether Brendan MacMahon t/a Irish Cottage Trading Company had satisfied the requirements to zero-rate 47 intra-Community supplies to Enkay Marketing SL. The Tribunal found that for most transactions the commercial transport documents were forged, the goods did not reach Spain, and the appellant had not taken reasonable precautions; it upheld the assessments except for four supplies in 06/05 and 12/05 where the appellant had taken reasonable steps. The appeal was allowed in part and no costs were awarded.

Mr A I Muhammad v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs 11 November 2009 This case concerns HMRC's enquiries and discovery assessments for Mr A I Muhammad for 2001-02 to 2005-06, principally disputing his claimed self-employment (freelance musician) expenses including household apportionments. The First-tier Tribunal found Mr Muhammad had not discharged the burden of proof to show those expenses were wholly business-related, accepted HMRC's adjustments (including treating earlier years as no-profit-no-loss), dismissed his appeal and confirmed the assessments and specified repayment/refund figures.

Mr N Noor Khan v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 303 (TC) 11 November 2009 This appeal concerned seizure and forfeiture of unstamped alcoholic drinks and a £250 penalty after HMRC officers found goods in Mr Khan's shop and served notices; the appellant produced one invoice but failed to provide adequate invoices or evidence of duty paid, and did not appeal or request restoration within the one‑month statutory period. The tribunal treated the goods as deemed forfeited for lateness, accepted the officers' evidence that some goods appeared intended for export, dismissed the appeal and confirmed the £250 penalty.

Prior Roofing Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 302 (TC) 11 November 2009 Prior Roofing Ltd appealed HMRC's withdrawal of its Gross Payments Status under the Construction Industry Scheme after eight late tax payments. The tribunal found the company had suffered wholly exceptional trading and banking conditions outside the directors' control, and that the directors' sustained efforts to secure funds and reduce costs amounted to a continuing "reasonable excuse" for the late payments. The appeal was allowed and Gross Payments Status was reinstated.

David Kirkaldy v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 301 (TC) 10 November 2009 This appeal concerned an amended Excise Duty assessment for use of rebated (red) diesel in two vehicles. The Tribunal accepted HMRC's evidence, inferred prolonged use of rebated fuel from 100% contaminated samples, upheld HMRC's estimated mileage and consumption (less allowed receipts), and dismissed the appeal, confirming duty of £2,845 for the period 1 August 2005 to 28 November 2007.

Parnalls Solicitors Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 318 (TC) 10 November 2009 This appeal concerned whether Parnalls, having acquired a solicitors' practice which included an annuity obligation to a former partner, had assumed that liability as part of the purchase consideration and whether a £1.15m lump‑sum commutation paid in 2005 was a deductible revenue expense. The Tribunal found that Parnalls had assumed the annuity as part of the purchase price and that the commutation payment extinguishing that assumed liability was capital in nature. The appeal was dismissed.

Diana Bryce t/a The Barn v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 298 (TC) 6 November 2009 This appeal concerned whether charges for children's parties at "The Barn" were a single supply or separable supplies for VAT. The Tribunal held the transaction comprised two supplies: an exempt grant of a licence to occupy the Hall (use of the premises with minor ancillaries) and a standard-rated supply of refreshments, apportioning the party price accordingly. HMRC was ordered to repay the apportioned output tax; parties to agree the sum or relist the appeal.

Jerzy Tuznik v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 299 (TC) 6 November 2009 This appeal concerned HMRC's seizure at Dover of 7,260 cigarettes hidden in Mr Tuznik's car and HMRC's subsequent refusal to restore the vehicle. The First-tier Tribunal heard the case in the appellant's absence, accepted the officer's notes, found the cigarettes (at least 7,060) chargeable and concealed, upheld the review decision refusing restoration as reasonable, and dismissed the appeal. The appellant was informed of rights to apply to set aside the decision and to seek permission to appeal.

Queenspice Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 300 (TC) 6 November 2009 HMRC issued a VAT assessment of £106,504 against Queenspice Ltd for under-declared turnover for March 2002–May 2008 based on two test purchases and two investigatory "cash ups." The First-tier Tribunal accepted HMRC officers' contemporaneous notes as best evidence, found the methodology (including reliance on the two sample days) sufficient for a best-judgement assessment, and concluded the under-declaration was deliberate and dishonest. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.

A C Rosbottom v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 294 (TC) 4 November 2009 This appeal concerned two £250 HMRC penalties for using rebated red diesel in a road vehicle; the appellant, a farmer, admitted buying bio-diesel without receipts but denied knowingly using red diesel. The tribunal accepted his credible evidence that a minor trace of red diesel in fuel tests resulted from contaminated bio-diesel beyond his knowledge or control. The tribunal found that amounted to a reasonable excuse, allowed the appeal, quashed the penalties and awarded costs to the appellant.

Beresford Blake Thomas Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 293 (TC) 4 November 2009 The appellant, a large recruitment consultancy, appealed a 5% default surcharge of £91,393.60 imposed for late payment of VAT for the quarter 12/08. The Tribunal found the appellant had no "reasonable excuse" — the late payment resulted from internal oversight and inadequate systems despite available information and prior warnings — and dismissed the appeal, leaving the surcharge intact. The Tribunal noted it had no power to reduce or mitigate the surcharge.

Click Distribution Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 297 (TC) 4 November 2009 This appeal concerned default VAT surcharges imposed on Click Distribution Ltd for late VAT returns in 09/07 and 12/07. Click relied on cashflow problems and unexpected order volumes as a "reasonable excuse" for late payment; the Tribunal found Click had not proven an unforeseeable underlying cause and dismissed the appeal, upholding surcharges of £200.93 and £5,036.98. The Tribunal also held it had no power to reduce the surcharges.

Janet Garbacka v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 295 (TC) 4 November 2009 This appeal challenged HMRC's refusal to restore 1,580 cigarettes and 3 kg hand‑rolling tobacco seized at Dover as not for the appellant's own use. The tribunal found the appellant's accounts about cost, funds and consumption inconsistent and not credible, concluded the goods were imported for a commercial purpose, and upheld the lawful seizure and the review officer's refusal to restore. The appeal was dismissed and the goods were forfeited; no costs were ordered.

Rebba Construction Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 296 (TC) 4 November 2009 This appeal concerned whether the Tudor Wing, a 17-room annex built attached to Sandford Residential Home, was an extension of the existing home (subject to standard-rated VAT) or created new dwellings qualifying for VAT zero-rating. The Tribunal found the Wing was physically and functionally integrated with Sandford (shared access, services, management, appearance and reliance on Sandford's kitchen and laundry) and therefore an extension, not separate self-contained dwellings. The appeal was dismissed and HMRC's assessment upheld.

Strongwork Construction Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 292 (TC) 3 November 2009 Strongwork Construction Ltd appealed HMRC's decision to withdraw its gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme after a compliance check found ten late PAYE payments in the relevant 12-month period. The Tribunal held the defaults exceeded the tolerances in Regulation 32 and, absent a reasonable excuse, meant the company failed the compliance test; the company's explanations (bad debts and the director's injury) did not establish a sufficient reasonable excuse to avoid removal. The Tribunal upheld HMRC's decision and noted it had no discretion to apply a proportionality test to overturn removal of gross status.

I S Jefferies and L A Jefferies v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 291 (TC) 29 October 2009 Mr and Mrs Jefferies appealed HMRC assessments after selling a partly residential, partly business hotel. The Tribunal held that private residence relief (PRR) removes part of the gain, not part of the underlying asset, and that, applying the Schedule A1 requirement of a "just and reasonable" apportionment, the whole remaining chargeable gain should be treated as a business-asset gain for taper relief. The taxpayers' appeal was allowed.

Sarwar & Sons Knitwear Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 281 (TC) 29 October 2009 This appeal concerned a £4,894 misdeclaration penalty and an application for costs after three related appeals were withdrawn. The tribunal found the company had no reasonable excuse and had not behaved as a responsible trader given the absence of an audit trail or reasonable checks, and dismissed the appeal against the penalty. The tribunal also refused the company's costs application despite criticising HMRC's delayed production of an invoice.

Sumanan Poopalasingham v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 282 (TC) 28 October 2009 This appeal concerned HMRC adjustments and discovery assessments for a takeaway business (tax years 2003–2006) premised on HMRC’s estimate that at least £700 per week of cash takings were undeclared. The First-tier Tribunal found HMRC’s investigatory evidence (missing till rolls, test purchases, invigilation results, unexplained bankings and undeclared income) supported a reasonable estimate of suppressed income and dismissed the appeal. The appellant failed to discharge the burden of rebutting HMRC’s estimates.

Westview Rail Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 269 (TC) 27 October 2009 Westview Rail Ltd appealed HMRC's cancellation of its Construction Industry Scheme (CIS) gross payment registration. The Tribunal found the company's appeal notice invalid because it did not state reasons as required by statute, so there was no appeal before the Tribunal; alternatively, had the notice been valid the Tribunal would have dismissed the appeal on the merits because Westview failed the compliance test and offered no reasonable excuse. The company's gross payment registration therefore remains cancelled.

Paola Sassi v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 280 (TC) 23 October 2009 This appeal concerned whether construction of one flat (Flat B) formed part of a "business" so as to bar a DIY builders VAT refund under s35 VATA. The Tribunal found, on the facts and applying established indicia, that the works were carried out otherwise than in the course or furtherance of any business and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal declined to adjudicate on alleged misleading HMRC advice as beyond its remit.

Michael Roy Culverwell v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 276 (TC) 22 October 2009 The appellant sought repayment from HMRC of £826.16 VAT charged by suppliers on windows and doors for a new dwelling under the DIY builders' refund scheme. The Tribunal found the supplies should have been zero-rated, so no VAT was chargeable, and that the DIY refund provisions do not entitle the appellant to recover VAT erroneously charged by suppliers from HMRC. The appeal was dismissed and the appellant's remedy was held to be a civil claim against the suppliers.

Mohammed Tariq v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 279 (TC) 22 October 2009 This appeal concerned whether the appellant actually received high‑value mobile phones shown on supplier invoices and thus was entitled to reclaim the associated input VAT. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the transactions were part of a missing trader fraud, the appellant did not receive the goods, and therefore could not reclaim the input VAT; HMRC’s input‑tax assessments were upheld. The Tribunal also held that assessments purporting to charge the appellant with VAT shown on false supplier invoices were ineffective as assessments but gave rise to debts recoverable by HMRC under Schedule 11.

Mr John Cooksey and Mrs Christine Cooksey v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 275 (TC) 21 October 2009 This appeal concerned multiple HMRC discovery assessments against the Cookseys for undeclared cash sales and offshore investments. The First-tier Tribunal found the Cookseys and their witness not credible, held the taxpayers had not discharged the burden of proof that the assessments were excessive, and concluded HMRC had made a sufficient "discovery", so the appeals were dismissed and the assessments stood.

24/7 Fuels Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 274 (TC) 19 October 2009 24/7 Fuels appealed against HMRC but repeatedly failed to comply with Tribunal directions and missed deadlines to show cause why the appeal should not be struck out. The Tribunal found the 5 June 2009 deadline was not met and late correspondence did not disclose sufficient cause, struck the appeal out under the applicable rule, and awarded costs to HMRC to be quantified if not agreed.

Gerard Kinney v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 273 (TC) 19 October 2009 This case concerns a VAT assessment on Gerard Kinney (trading as Kinney Skip Hire) who received waste timber from an Irish demolition contractor and treated his supplies as zero-rated demolition services. The First-tier Tribunal found Kinney was a subcontractor who received and processed waste at his Newry depot, did not share in the demolition contract's risk or reward, and thus should have charged VAT; the appeal was dismissed and the assessment of £5,787.66 was upheld.

Peter Benjamin Lyon v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 267 (TC) 19 October 2009 This appeal challenged HMRC's VAT assessment applying the margin scheme to a VAT-registered second‑hand car dealer, Mr Lyon, who argued the UK implementation was unfair, discriminatory and wrongly refused aggregation (global accounting). The First‑tier Tribunal held the Directive requires a margin scheme taxing a dealer's profit margin, permits invoices without showing VAT and denies purchasers input tax, and that Member States may validly exclude motor vehicles from aggregation. The Tribunal found no evidence Mr Lyon had opted into the scheme, dismissed his appeal, and left the assessment (including HMRC's input‑tax estimate) in place.

Asda Stores Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 264 (TC) 16 October 2009 Asda appealed HMRC's decision that its "Seed Stacked FlapJack" was standard-rated confectionary rather than zero-rated cake. The tribunal applied the ordinary‑person test to name, ingredients, texture, packaging, marketing and manner of eating, tasted the product, and found it to be a sweetened prepared food normally eaten with the fingers. The product was not regarded as a cake and the appeal was dismissed.

Botanical Catering Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 265 (TC) 16 October 2009 This appeal concerned Botanical Catering Ltd's reclaim of overpaid VAT on cold takeaway sandwiches after it discovered they were zero-rated. HMRC accepted an earlier voluntary disclosure but refused a later disclosure made in May 2008 as outside the three-year time limit in s.80 VAT Act 1994; the Tribunal held the later claim was time-barred and dismissed the appeal. The Tribunal also held there was no discretion under s.80 to admit an out-of-time claim.

David Low t/a Lows Traditional Fish & Chips v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 272 (TC) 16 October 2009 This appeal concerns David Low trading as Lows Traditional Fish & Chips challenging a default surcharge of £792.32 for VAT quarter 06/08. The tribunal refused the appeal, finding that late BACS instructions meant payment missed the extended due date and that reliance on a new bookkeeper’s ignorance of payment timing did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The surcharge was upheld and no expenses were awarded.

Jean Sherry v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 266 (TC) 16 October 2009 Mrs Jean Sherry appealed the Reviewing Officer’s refusal to return wine seized by Customs after she and a companion imported large quantities from France. The tribunal found the volumes (about 792 litres), prior similar imports, and inconsistent accounts supported a finding of commercial importation and held the Reviewing Officer acted reasonably; the appeal was dismissed.

Vaccine Research LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 333 (TC) 16 October 2009 Vaccine Research LLP asked the Tribunal to direct HMRC to issue a closure notice for the 2006–07 partnership return after HMRC's enquiry into very large capital allowance claims. The Tribunal found HMRC had conducted the enquiry to the point where they could reasonably make an informed judgment, rejected HMRC’s request for three months to pursue further third‑party enquiries, and directed HMRC to issue a closure notice within 45 days of 2 October 2009.

Watt Power (UK) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 263 (TC) 16 October 2009 Watt Power (UK) Ltd appealed HMRC assessments disallowing a reclaimed input tax amount of £11,715 (period 12/03) and a misdeclaration penalty of £1,757. The tribunal found WP had not produced a valid invoice or satisfactory supporting evidence that output VAT had been properly accounted and so dismissed the appeal against the assessment and the penalty. The tribunal also ordered WP to pay HMRC's costs from the end of the first day's hearing (but not for that first day).

Barry O'Brien t/a Poster Sites (Southern) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 262 (TC) 15 October 2009 This appeal arose from Mr O'Brien's contention that VAT he paid after his bankruptcy should have been treated as a bankruptcy debt, relying on an HMRC letter of 18 June 2009. The Tribunal held the letter could reasonably be regarded as a decision for appeal purposes but that the substance of the claim did not fall within the repayment provisions of VATA s 80 because the amount paid was VAT that was due when paid. The appeal was struck out for want of jurisdiction and no costs were awarded.

Iain K Bell v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 270 (TC) 13 October 2009 Mr Bell failed to comply with notices to file tax returns for several years. The Tribunal held that the Tax Management Act provisions requiring returns and imposing daily penalties under s93(3) applied, dismissed his appeal against the penalties, and upheld the penalties totaling £1,800 (held over pending appeal). Mr Bell did not attend the hearing; procedural rights to apply to set aside or to appeal and directions on possible costs were given.

Thomas Joseph Beamish v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 271 (TC) 13 October 2009 This appeal concerned whether HMRC (NICO) or the DWP Pension Service had authority over Mr Beamish’s National Insurance contribution record and whether the contribution record for 1974–1984 should be altered. The tribunal found responsibility lay with HMRC/NICO and, on the balance of probabilities after reviewing documentary and employer records, confirmed the HMRC decision of 21 August 2006 showing the challenged gaps. Mr Beamish’s arguments to reallocate or correct contributions (including under regulation 60) were rejected for lack of sufficient evidence.

HBOS Treasury Services Plc(now HBOS Treasury Services Limited) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 261 (TC) 12 October 2009 HBOS Treasury Services monetised swaps by novating them into a newly formed subsidiary, Dorus, then sold Dorus and claimed a deduction for a c.£2.2m fee paid to AIG. The First-tier Tribunal held that paragraph 28 Schedule 26 did not disregard the novation because Dorus’s rights/liabilities were not "equivalent" (a contingent Termination Event altered financial effect), but the £2.2m fee was deductible under paragraph 15 as a debit linked to the related transaction. The Tribunal gave an alternative ruling that, if paragraph 28 had applied, s.30 TCG Act would have adjusted the disposal so the claimed capital loss was entirely disallowed.

Anna Czarnecka,Ewa Kwiecien, Marek Zasadowske,Konrad Zaprzala,Wieslaw Koluch v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 255 (TC) 8 October 2009 Five appellants arriving from Poland with large quantities of alcohol were found by the tribunal to have imported the goods for a commercial purpose rather than personal use, so the respondents reasonably refused restoration of the seized alcohol. Mr Koluch, who attended and gave evasive evidence and had prior seizure history, failed to persuade the tribunal to quash a conditional restoration of his hired van; the £900 condition was upheld. The other appellants, mostly unrepresented and not attending to rebut the respondents, also failed in their appeals.

Global Foods Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2026] UKFTT 1119 (TC) 8 October 2009 Global Foods Ltd appealed HMRC’s refusal to restore four consignments of beer seized in 2004. The Tribunal found it proper to consider post-seizure matters bearing on the legality of the seizure (notably whether duty had been paid), criticised the independence and thoroughness of HMRC’s 2007 review, and ordered a further independent review addressing identified evidential gaps; the Tribunal did not finally determine whether duty had been paid. Each party to bear its own costs.

Herling Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 257 (TC) 8 October 2009 Herling Ltd appealed VAT assessments which treated the first grant of 28 holiday dwellings as standard‑rated rather than zero‑rated. The Tribunal found the planning consent legally enforceable and expressly limited the use to "holiday accommodation only", thereby preventing use as a grantee's principal private residence and excluding zero‑rating under Note (13) to Group 5. The appeal was dismissed and the assessments upheld.

Modified Gumball Rally Limited known as Modball Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 250 (TC) 8 October 2009 Modball Limited appealed HMRC's refusal to change its VAT effective date of registration from 29 November 2006 to 1 March 2007 after an online voluntary registration was submitted with the earlier date. The Tribunal found no official or system error in HMRC’s initial processing or in the three‑month forward limit on online entries, but held HMRC should have made clear the appellant’s request amounted to seeking cancellation and re‑registration and remitted the matter for a fresh review by officers not previously involved. The appeal was partially allowed and HMRC was directed to review the request afresh on that basis.

Joanne Matthews v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 254 (TC) 5 October 2009 This appeal concerned HMRC's refusal to restore a vehicle seized at Dover after hand-rolling tobacco was imported in it by the registered user's friend. The Tribunal found Mrs Hodge's review decision unreasonable because it failed to give full regard to the exceptional hardship the innocent registered owner, Miss Matthews, would suffer. The Tribunal directed that the review decision cease to have effect and remitted the matter for a fresh review by a different officer within 30 days; no restoration was itself ordered by the Tribunal.

Airtours Holiday Transport Limited (formerly) My Travel Group v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 256 (TC) 2 October 2009 This appeal concerned whether My Travel Group (formerly Airtours) could deduct VAT charged by PwC for services provided during a 2002 rescue process. The Tribunal found that the Group was a party to the engagement, authorised and paid for PwC's work, and used the services for its business, so it was entitled to claim the input tax. The appeal was allowed and directions were given on procedural steps and costs.

Malcolm Hutchinson t/a Clifton Fisheries v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 252 (TC) 2 October 2009 Mr Hutchinson, on the VAT Flat Rate Scheme, claimed repayment of VAT overpaid after his flat rate was reduced from 13% to 12% from 1 Jan 2004. HMRC repaid amounts within three years but refused earlier sums under the s.80 VAT Act 1994 time limit. The Tribunal held the three-year statutory bar prevented repayment of the older element and dismissed the appeal.

Yellow v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 259 (TC) 30 September 2009 This case records procedural rulings in an appeal by Yellow against HMRC. The tribunal dismissed Yellow's application, upheld HMRC's application, and ordered that Yellow's appeal be joined with and heard together with Blue's appeal. The tribunal declined to make immediate directions about an extension of time for service of a list of documents, inviting the parties to agree or to apply later.

Baljit Singh t/a BS Construction v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 245 (TC) 25 September 2009 The appellant challenged a compulsory VAT registration said to be effective 1 September 2003, arguing HMRC were "out of time" by reference to statutory time limits for assessments. The tribunal accepted the factual case that the taxable turnover threshold was breached in July 2003 and dismissed the appeal, holding the time‑bar provisions relied on applied to assessments, not to compulsory registration, so HMRC were not out of time to register.

Dr Peter Allan Howson v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 248 (TC) 25 September 2009 Dr Peter Allan Howson appealed HMRC's refusal to restore 6kg of hand-rolling tobacco seized at Dover and upheld on internal review. The tribunal held it was not an abuse of process to hear the restoration appeal despite the deemed condemnation and found the reviewing officer's refusal to restore the tobacco was reasonable and proportionate, dismissing the appeal.

Friendly Loans Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 247 (TC) 25 September 2009 Friendly Loans Limited, a loan broker, appealed HMRC's ruling that its transfers of customer details to group company Gregory Pennington were standard‑rated supplies of leads. The Tribunal found the Appellant acted as an intermediary that performed substantive screening, completed application work and steered customers into Gregory Pennington’s debt negotiation and payment‑handling contracts, so its supplies were sufficiently related to exempt financial services under Article 13B(d)(3)/group 5 and thus VAT‑exempt. The appeal was allowed and costs awarded against HMRC.

Peter Jackson (Jewellers) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 246 (TC) 25 September 2009 Peter Jackson (Jewellers) Ltd appealed a £1,000 penalty under the Money Laundering Regulations 2003 for failing to register as a high value dealer after receiving staged cash payments for a watch (total stated £15,400) and a separate cash payment (£3,700) for a bezel. The First-tier Tribunal held the staged deposits for the watch amounted to a "total cash payment" meeting the €15,000 threshold, treated the watch and bezel as separate transactions, found the Commissioners' late review decision valid, and dismissed the appeal upholding the penalty.

Miss M M Anderson (Deceased) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 22 September 2009 This appeal concerned whether HMRC's discovery assessment of 2 September 2005 against Miss Anderson was valid under TMA s29, either because incorrect tax credit treatment on her return arose from negligent conduct (s29(4)) or because HMRC could be taken to have been put on notice by information made available to them (s29(5)). The Tribunal held the chargeable event certificate sent by the insurer to HMRC was not information made available by the taxpayer and so s29(5) did not prevent the assessment, and it found the incorrect tax credit claim was attributable to negligent conduct so that s29(4) was satisfied. The appeal was dismissed.

Trans Medium Limited t/a Connectivity v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 243 (TC) 22 September 2009 Trans-Medium Limited appealed HMRC’s refusal of a VAT exemption for IT training supplies on the basis it was an "eligible body" not entitled to distribute profits. Although the company’s memorandum barred profit distribution, the Tribunal found that in practice the company pursued profit for the benefit of its sole controllers, who were paid substantial directors’ remuneration. The Tribunal treated those payments as distributed profits for the purposes of the exemption and concluded the company did not meet the non‑profit definition. The appeal was dismissed (or would have been dismissed if not already withdrawn).

4 Distribution Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 242 (TC) 18 September 2009 This case is an appeal by 4 Distribution Ltd against HMRC’s refusal to repay input VAT on eight handset deals in May–June 2006. The First‑tier Tribunal found the relevant supply chains included missing‑trader fraud and that the Appellant ought to have known — and in fact did know via its directors — that its purchases were connected with fraudulent evasion, so input tax was disallowed. No reference to the ECJ was required and the appeal was dismissed with costs awarded to HMRC.

Mr Colin Walton v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2009] UKFTT 332 (TC) 18 September 2009 Mr Walton, a wholesale florist, appealed HMRC amendments to his 2005/06 and 2006/07 returns and discovery assessments for 2002/03–2004/05 after HMRC found unexplained bank/ISA deposits, gaps in his cash book and implausible explanations for household income. The First‑tier Tribunal found Mr Walton's records inadequate and his explanations inconsistent and uncorroborated, accepted HMRC's recalculation using an average gross profit rate (~25%), and dismissed the appeal, upholding the amendments and discovery assessments.

Ian Osborne John Godden Valerie Patterson William Swales Stanley Mower Angela Simmons David Wadwell Robert Brumpton Michael Phillips Clifford Bonner Ian Hodkinson Michael Dobson John Skeldon v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 241 (TC) 17 September 2009 Thirteen joined appeals challenged HMRC refusals to refund voluntary Class 3 National Insurance contributions as not "paid in error" under regulation 52. The Tribunal held that "error" is limited to mistakes ascertainable at the time of payment and relating to past or present matters; applying that test it allowed two refunds (Brumpton and one Wadwell payment) and dismissed the other eleven appeals. The Tribunal rejected broader fairness, negligence or mis‑selling arguments outside the statutory test.

Mr Barry Triscott v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 240 (TC) 16 September 2009 This appeal concerned VAT assessments and HMRC's rejection of a voluntary disclosure relating to a café/sandwich bar business. HMRC used staggered percentages for standard-rated sales and a 20% mark-up on confectionery purchases based on available records and Z‑readings; the appellant failed to produce contemporaneous records despite repeated opportunities. The Tribunal found HMRC's estimation methods reasonable, dismissed the appeal, and upheld the assessment and rejection of the voluntary disclosure.

Darren Munns v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 290 (TC) 15 September 2009 This appeal challenged HMRC's decision to withdraw Mr Munns' gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme after a compliance check. The Tribunal found his CIS returns met the regulatory tolerances but several income tax payments fell outside the tolerances in Regulation 32 and he had no reasonable excuse for those late payments. The appeal was dismissed and deregistration upheld.

David Kirkaldy v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 239 (TC) 15 September 2009 David Kirkaldy v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 239 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Nigel P Grogan v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 238 (TC) 14 September 2009 Nigel P Grogan v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 238 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

North Yorkshire Police and Mrs Deborah Wade v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 237 (TC) 14 September 2009 North Yorkshire Police and Mrs Deborah Wade v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 237 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Resteel Trading Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 236 (TC) 9 September 2009 Resteel Trading Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 236 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Beast In The Heart Films (UK)Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 230 (TC) 7 September 2009 Beast In The Heart Films (UK)Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 230 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Plazadome Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 229 (TC) 4 September 2009 Plazadome Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 229 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve 308 Notices under para 5 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 on Financial Institutions in respect of customers with UK addresses holding Non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 224 (TC) 3 September 2009 Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve 308 Notices under para 5 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 on Financial Institutions in respect of customers with UK addresses holding Non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 224 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Dada Records Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 251 (TC) 2 September 2009 Dada Records Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 251 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Acrylux Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 1 September 2009 Acrylux Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Haseeb Mini Supermarket Limited (substituted as Appellant by the Direction herein for MSAWER KASHMIRI) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 222 (TC) 1 September 2009 Haseeb Mini Supermarket Limited (substituted as Appellant by the Direction herein for MSAWER KASHMIRI) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 222 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Taylor & Lodge v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 228 (TC) 28 August 2009 Taylor & Lodge v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 228 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

SRI International v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 221 (TC) 27 August 2009 SRI International v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 221 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Alfred Lamb International Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 220 (TC) 25 August 2009 Alfred Lamb International Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 220 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Peter Terence O'Neill v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 219 (TC) 25 August 2009 Peter Terence O'Neill v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 219 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

1. Pizza Place 2. Reza Taheri-Khamn 3. Ebrahim Khaknejad-Kermani v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 216 (TC) 24 August 2009 1. Pizza Place 2. Reza Taheri-Khamn 3. Ebrahim Khaknejad-Kermani v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 216 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Marks and Spencer Plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 231 (TC) 24 August 2009 Marks and Spencer Plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 231 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Pincroft Dyeing and Printing Limited Carrington Career and Workwear Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 217 (TC) 24 August 2009 Pincroft Dyeing and Printing Limited Carrington Career and Workwear Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 217 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Westone Wholesale Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 218 (TC) 24 August 2009 Westone Wholesale Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 218 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Philip John Wright v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 227 (TC) 20 August 2009 Philip John Wright v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 227 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Lookers Motor Group Limited (t/a Ellesmere Port Division-and Other Divisions) and Charles Hurst Limited (t/a Lookers Motor Group) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 19 August 2009 Lookers Motor Group Limited (t/a Ellesmere Port Division-and Other Divisions) and Charles Hurst Limited (t/a Lookers Motor Group) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Philips Electronics UK Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 18 August 2009 Philips Electronics UK Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Air and Marine Services Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 211 (TC) 14 August 2009 Air and Marine Services Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 211 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

John Patrick Smith v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 210 (TC) 13 August 2009 John Patrick Smith v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 210 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Sceptre Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 247 (TC) 13 August 2009 Sceptre Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs ([2010] UKFTT 247 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

A S Lambert v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 208 (TC) 11 August 2009 A S Lambert v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 208 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Laerstate BV v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 209 (TC) 11 August 2009 Laerstate BV v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 209 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Cycle Citi Corporation Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 205 (TC) 10 August 2009 Cycle Citi Corporation Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 205 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Javed Ahmed t/a Star Private Hire v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 206 (TC) 10 August 2009 Javed Ahmed t/a Star Private Hire v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 206 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

John Lightfoot v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 207 (TC) 10 August 2009 John Lightfoot v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 207 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

DFS Furniture Company Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 204 (TC) 7 August 2009 DFS Furniture Company Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 204 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

William John Terry (in business as Wealden Properties) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 202 (TC) 7 August 2009 William John Terry (in business as Wealden Properties) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 202 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Legal & General Assurance Society Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 225 (TC) 6 August 2009 Legal & General Assurance Society Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 225 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

London Clubs Management Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 201 (TC) 5 August 2009 London Clubs Management Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 201 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Pillars Property Cleaning and Maintenance Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 235 (TC) 5 August 2009 Pillars Property Cleaning and Maintenance Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 235 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Hilltop Assistance Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 200 (TC) 4 August 2009 Hilltop Assistance Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 200 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Oaks Pavilion Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 190 (TC) 31 July 2009 Oaks Pavilion Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 190 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Skipton Building Society v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 191 (TC) 31 July 2009 Skipton Building Society v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 191 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Ultralase Medical Aesthetics Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 187 (TC) 31 July 2009 Ultralase Medical Aesthetics Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 187 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Rasam Gayatri Silks Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2010] UKFTT 50 (TC) 30 July 2009 Rasam Gayatri Silks Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs ([2010] UKFTT 50 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Sophie Holdings Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 189 (TC) 30 July 2009 Sophie Holdings Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 189 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Sussex Police Authority v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 188 (TC) 30 July 2009 Sussex Police Authority v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 188 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Mr A J Ebsworth v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 199 (TC) 29 July 2009 Mr A J Ebsworth v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 199 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Walk in Walk in Action Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 186 (TC) 29 July 2009 Walk in Walk in Action Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 186 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Jonathan David Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 289 (TC) 28 July 2009 Jonathan David Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 289 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Robert & Lillian Waddell t/a LCD Plant Hire v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 185 (TC) 27 July 2009 Robert & Lillian Waddell t/a LCD Plant Hire v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 185 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Digi Systems (Ireland) Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 183 (TC) 24 July 2009 Digi Systems (Ireland) Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 183 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Grattan Plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 184 (TC) 24 July 2009 Grattan Plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 184 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Euro Stock Shop Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 182 (TC) 23 July 2009 Euro Stock Shop Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 182 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Allen Carr's Easyway (International) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 181 (TC) 22 July 2009 Allen Carr's Easyway (International) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 181 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Moorbury Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 180 (TC) 21 July 2009 Moorbury Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 180 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Atec Associates Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 178 (TC) 17 July 2009 Atec Associates Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 178 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Keele University Students Union v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 161 (TC) 17 July 2009 Keele University Students Union v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 161 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Kevin Almond v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 177 (TC) 17 July 2009 Kevin Almond v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 177 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Ernest Burton Ernest Floate David Leech Gordon Pirret Davendra Pratap Terry Simpson v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 203 (TC) 16 July 2009 Ernest Burton Ernest Floate David Leech Gordon Pirret Davendra Pratap Terry Simpson v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 203 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Grimsby College Enterprises Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 167 (TC) 15 July 2009 Grimsby College Enterprises Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 167 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Roger Brian Arthur v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 168 (TC) 15 July 2009 Roger Brian Arthur v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 168 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Smart Voucher Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 169 (TC) 15 July 2009 Smart Voucher Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 169 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Late Editions Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 14 July 2009 Late Editions Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Penta Office Furniture Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 165 (TC) 14 July 2009 Penta Office Furniture Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 165 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

John Lawlor v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 164 (TC) 13 July 2009 John Lawlor v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 164 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Richard Cedric Hart Jones v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 154 (TC) 9 July 2009 Richard Cedric Hart Jones v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 154 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Oliver Uzoaru t/a Couzsons UK v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 153 (TC) 8 July 2009 Oliver Uzoaru t/a Couzsons UK v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 153 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Purple Parking Limited Airparks Services Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 152 (TC) 8 July 2009 Purple Parking Limited Airparks Services Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 152 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Stephen Mutch v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 288 (TC) 7 July 2009 Stephen Mutch v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 288 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

ALH Interior Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 234 (TC) 6 July 2009 ALH Interior Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 234 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

APS-Centriline Ltd, Enviro Engineering Ltd, PSI Engineering Ltd, William Norman Lewis t/a William N Lewis Associates v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 149 (TC) 3 July 2009 APS-Centriline Ltd, Enviro Engineering Ltd, PSI Engineering Ltd, William Norman Lewis t/a William N Lewis Associates v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 149 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

A O Sokoya v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 163 (TC) 1 July 2009 A O Sokoya v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 163 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

M R Klincke v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 156 (TC) 1 July 2009 M R Klincke v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 156 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Leeds Lifts Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 287 (TC) 26 June 2009 Leeds Lifts Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 287 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Trevor Rockliff v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 162 (TC) 25 June 2009 Trevor Rockliff v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 162 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

A Longworth & Sons Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 286 (TC) 24 June 2009 A Longworth & Sons Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 286 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Ashby Contracting Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 145 (TC) 24 June 2009 Ashby Contracting Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 145 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Junction 29 Truckstop Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 148 (TC) 24 June 2009 Junction 29 Truckstop Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 148 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Manvik Plant & Hire Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 144 (TC) 24 June 2009 Manvik Plant & Hire Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 144 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Marshall Gorman v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 147 (TC) 24 June 2009 Marshall Gorman v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 147 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Seatechs Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 24 June 2009 Seatechs Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Washingbay Agencies Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 143 (TC) 24 June 2009 Washingbay Agencies Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 143 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

J Z Machtech Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 233 (TC) 19 June 2009 J Z Machtech Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 233 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

John Morgan v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 134 (TC) 19 June 2009 John Morgan v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 134 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

David Spowage, Alexander Finlayson, Michael Allan and Brian Eley v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 142 (TC) 18 June 2009 David Spowage, Alexander Finlayson, Michael Allan and Brian Eley v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 142 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Drivers Direct (2008) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 132 (TC) 18 June 2009 Drivers Direct (2008) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 132 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Lawrence and Joan Jones v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 133 (TC) 18 June 2009 Lawrence and Joan Jones v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 133 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Littler Machinery Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 131 (TC) 18 June 2009 Littler Machinery Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 131 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Notice under Para 5 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 on Financial Institution No 10 in respect of customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 196 (TC) 17 June 2009 Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Notice under Para 5 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 on Financial Institution No 10 in respect of customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 196 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Notice under Para 5 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 on Financial Institution No 9 in respect of customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 17 June 2009 Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Notice under Para 5 of Sch 36 to the Finance Act 2008 on Financial Institution No 9 in respect of customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Arkzone Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 129 (TC) 16 June 2009 Arkzone Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 129 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Nigel Lowe Consulting Ltd Nigel Lowe Holdings Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 130 (TC) 16 June 2009 Nigel Lowe Consulting Ltd Nigel Lowe Holdings Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 130 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Clover Chemicals Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 285 (TC) 15 June 2009 Clover Chemicals Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 285 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Lynne Cornell v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 140 (TC) 11 June 2009 Lynne Cornell v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 140 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

David McCowan & Frank Williams t/a Crystal Windows v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 128 (TC) 10 June 2009 David McCowan & Frank Williams t/a Crystal Windows v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 128 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Russell Beard (as partner in F & B Builders) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 284 (TC) 10 June 2009 Russell Beard (as partner in F & B Builders) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 284 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Bridgnorth Golf Club v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 126 (TC) 9 June 2009 Bridgnorth Golf Club v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 126 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Dawsongroup Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 9 June 2009 Dawsongroup Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Dr Galaa Fayed v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 125 (TC) 9 June 2009 Dr Galaa Fayed v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 125 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

John Alexander Lithgow Mason v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 139 (TC) 9 June 2009 John Alexander Lithgow Mason v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 139 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Motorola Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 123 (TC) 9 June 2009 Motorola Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 123 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

P D Concepts Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 127 (TC) 9 June 2009 P D Concepts Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 127 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Philippa June Davies & Angela Dawn Rippon v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 138 (TC) 9 June 2009 Philippa June Davies & Angela Dawn Rippon v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 138 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Winshill Scaffolding Services (UK) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 124 (TC) 9 June 2009 Winshill Scaffolding Services (UK) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 124 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Lead Asset Strategies (Liverpool) Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 122 (TC) 5 June 2009 Lead Asset Strategies (Liverpool) Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 122 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Steve Craine & Kerry Anne Craine t/a The Pickwick Tavern v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 120 (TC) 3 June 2009 Steve Craine & Kerry Anne Craine t/a The Pickwick Tavern v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 120 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 121 (TC) 3 June 2009 Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 121 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Mrs Phillida Barnett And Mrs Lara Read t/a Burghill Valley Golf Club v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 2 June 2009 Mrs Phillida Barnett And Mrs Lara Read t/a Burghill Valley Golf Club v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Banbridge Fuel Services Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 112 (TC) 27 May 2009 Banbridge Fuel Services Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 112 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Cannon Express & Logistics Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 116 (TC) 27 May 2009 Cannon Express & Logistics Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 116 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Christopher Singleton v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 118 (TC) 27 May 2009 Christopher Singleton v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 118 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Drosden Plantruck Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 115 (TC) 27 May 2009 Drosden Plantruck Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 115 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Enda McNulty v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 111 (TC) 27 May 2009 Enda McNulty v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 111 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

John Andrew Thomas Faith v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 113 (TC) 27 May 2009 John Andrew Thomas Faith v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 113 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Keele University Students Union v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 114 (TC) 27 May 2009 Keele University Students Union v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 114 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Rory Trainor t/a Best Rate Bureau v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 117 (TC) 27 May 2009 Rory Trainor t/a Best Rate Bureau v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 117 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

The Funky End v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 110 (TC) 20 May 2009 The Funky End v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 110 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

David Jacobs UK Ltd (In Liquidation v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 106 (TC) 18 May 2009 David Jacobs UK Ltd (In Liquidation v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 106 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Gary Giles v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 109 (TC) 18 May 2009 Gary Giles v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 109 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

James Jeffery t/a Jeffery-Ryde v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 103 (TC) 18 May 2009 James Jeffery t/a Jeffery-Ryde v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 103 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Justrading Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 105 (TC) 18 May 2009 Justrading Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 105 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Lougula Ltd, Decision Vision ltd, Point Four Decision ltd Decsisionvision Lst v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 107 (TC) 18 May 2009 Lougula Ltd, Decision Vision ltd, Point Four Decision ltd Decsisionvision Lst v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 107 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

S & I Electronics Plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 18 May 2009 S & I Electronics Plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

ST Enoch's Garage Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 104 (TC) 18 May 2009 ST Enoch's Garage Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 104 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Andrew Michael Brander, Representative of the late Rt. Hon Gerald Arthur James, Fourth Earl of Balfour v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 101 (TC) 14 May 2009 Andrew Michael Brander, Representative of the late Rt. Hon Gerald Arthur James, Fourth Earl of Balfour v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 101 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Civilscent Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 102 (TC) 14 May 2009 Civilscent Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 102 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Insured Vehicle Coatings Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 97 (TC) 13 May 2009 Insured Vehicle Coatings Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 97 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Juppon Trading Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 98 (TC) 13 May 2009 Juppon Trading Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 98 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Vividas Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 100 (TC) 13 May 2009 Vividas Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 100 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Geoffrey Williams v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 96 (TC) 11 May 2009 Geoffrey Williams v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 96 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Mr John Grosvenor v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 283 (TC) 11 May 2009 Mr John Grosvenor v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 283 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

PA Holdings Ltd and Kully Janjuah v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 95 (TC) 7 May 2009 PA Holdings Ltd and Kully Janjuah v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 95 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Sally March v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 94 (TC) 7 May 2009 Sally March v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 94 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

C Plumb & Sons (Hatfield) Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 93 (TC) 6 May 2009 C Plumb & Sons (Hatfield) Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 93 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Ideal Shopping Direct plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 136 (TC) 6 May 2009 Ideal Shopping Direct plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 136 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Jeffrey Koundakjian v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 89 (TC) 6 May 2009 Jeffrey Koundakjian v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 89 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Loughborough University v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 91 (TC) 6 May 2009 Loughborough University v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 91 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

M Karimi Hajishoreh (t/a Pizza 1) M Karimi Hajishoreh and K Saghafi (t/a Chichini's) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 90 (TC) 6 May 2009 M Karimi Hajishoreh (t/a Pizza 1) M Karimi Hajishoreh and K Saghafi (t/a Chichini's) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 90 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Sophie Holdings Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 88 (TC) 6 May 2009 Sophie Holdings Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 88 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

The Trustees of the Lyndon David Hollinshead SIPP The Trustees of the Darren Hollinshead SIPP The Trustees of the Richard John Cox SIPP v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 92 (TC) 6 May 2009 The Trustees of the Lyndon David Hollinshead SIPP The Trustees of the Darren Hollinshead SIPP The Trustees of the Richard John Cox SIPP v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 92 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Brenda Margaret Kassabieh v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 86 (TC) 5 May 2009 Brenda Margaret Kassabieh v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 86 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Colin Williams v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 85 (TC) 5 May 2009 Colin Williams v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 85 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Joan Burke v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 87 (TC) 5 May 2009 Joan Burke v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 87 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Mithras (Wine Bar) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 83 (TC) 1 May 2009 Mithras (Wine Bar) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 83 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Sinnathaby Sivarajah t/a Everest Curry King v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 84 (TC) 1 May 2009 Sinnathaby Sivarajah t/a Everest Curry King v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 84 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

David Adams v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 30 April 2009 David Adams v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Mr & Mrs D Robbie t/a Dunlaw House Hotel v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 30 April 2009 Mr & Mrs D Robbie t/a Dunlaw House Hotel v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Strathspey Mushrooms Lts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 30 April 2009 Strathspey Mushrooms Lts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Alex Paton & Son v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 29 April 2009 Alex Paton & Son v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Graham Morgan Heather Self v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 29 April 2009 Graham Morgan Heather Self v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Plymouth Marine Laboratory v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 179 (TC) 29 April 2009 Plymouth Marine Laboratory v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 179 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Garsington Opera Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 28 April 2009 Garsington Opera Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Deadman Confidential Partnership Anthony Leonard Deadman Sharon Deadman v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 27 April 2009 Deadman Confidential Partnership Anthony Leonard Deadman Sharon Deadman v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Cardinal Entertainments Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 24 April 2009 Cardinal Entertainments Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Fantastic Illuminations Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 24 April 2009 Fantastic Illuminations Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

J A Hooper and L J Hooper v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 24 April 2009 J A Hooper and L J Hooper v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Michael Howe v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 24 April 2009 Michael Howe v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 24 April 2009 Repertoire Culinaire Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Rotherham Golf Academy Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 57 (TC) 24 April 2009 Rotherham Golf Academy Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 57 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Private & Confidential Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 59 (TC) 23 April 2009 Private & Confidential Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 59 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Anthony Doherty v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 56 (TC) 22 April 2009 Anthony Doherty v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 56 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Mrs Moira McCrae v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 22 April 2009 Mrs Moira McCrae v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Roland Hall v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 58 (TC) 22 April 2009 Roland Hall v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 58 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

John P Coll and Marian Coll v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 61 (TC) 21 April 2009 John P Coll and Marian Coll v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 61 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Patricia Black v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 54 (TC) 20 April 2009 Patricia Black v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 54 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Philip John Wright v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 53 (TC) 20 April 2009 Philip John Wright v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 53 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Dudman Group Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 52 (TC) 17 April 2009 Dudman Group Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 52 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Nicholas Paul Drury v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 50 (TC) 16 April 2009 Nicholas Paul Drury v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 50 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

The Depot v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 51 (TC) 16 April 2009 The Depot v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 51 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Art & Soul (Glasgow) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 49 (TC) 15 April 2009 Art & Soul (Glasgow) Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 49 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Javid Aslam (A Bankrupt) & Ashia Aslam-t/a Ramzan Foodstore v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 48 (TC) 14 April 2009 Javid Aslam (A Bankrupt) & Ashia Aslam-t/a Ramzan Foodstore v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 48 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Bestline Data Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 8 April 2009 Bestline Data Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Christopher Round v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 47 (TC) 8 April 2009 Christopher Round v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 47 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

I C Blue Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 40 (TC) 8 April 2009 I C Blue Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 40 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Keith Lamming v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 44 (TC) 8 April 2009 Keith Lamming v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 44 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Lee Patterson Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 45 (TC) 8 April 2009 Lee Patterson Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 45 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Lever Street Properties Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 46 (TC) 8 April 2009 Lever Street Properties Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 46 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Millennium Fresh Foods Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 43 (TC) 8 April 2009 Millennium Fresh Foods Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 43 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Patrick McKenna v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 41 (TC) 8 April 2009 Patrick McKenna v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 41 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Royal National Lifeboat Institution v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 39 (TC) 7 April 2009 Royal National Lifeboat Institution v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 39 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Thomas John Crompton v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 71 (TC) 7 April 2009 Thomas John Crompton v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 71 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Blue v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 3 April 2009 Blue v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

(1)Lower Mill Estate Limited (2)Conservation Builders Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 38 (TC) 2 April 2009 (1)Lower Mill Estate Limited (2)Conservation Builders Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 38 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Marks and Spencer Plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 64 (TC) 2 April 2009 Marks and Spencer Plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 64 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

T Singh Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 37 (TC) 2 April 2009 T Singh Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 37 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

(1)DSG Retail Limited (2)Mastercare Coverplan Service Agreements Limited (3) Mastercare Service and Distribution Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 31 (TC) 30 March 2009 (1)DSG Retail Limited (2)Mastercare Coverplan Service Agreements Limited (3) Mastercare Service and Distribution Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 31 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Section 20 Notice on Financial Institution No 8 in respect of Customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 70 (TC) 30 March 2009 Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Section 20 Notice on Financial Institution No 8 in respect of Customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 70 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Section 20 Notice on Financial institution No.5 in respect of Customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 30 March 2009 Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Section 20 Notice on Financial institution No.5 in respect of Customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Section 20 Notice on Financial Institutions Nos 6 and 7 in respect of Customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 69 (TC) 30 March 2009 Application by the Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs to serve a Section 20 Notice on Financial Institutions Nos 6 and 7 in respect of Customers with UK addresses holding non-UK accounts v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 69 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Geoffrey Dean Layton v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 36 (TC) 30 March 2009 Geoffrey Dean Layton v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 36 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Gordon Douglas Cairns (Personal Representative of Victor Douglas Eustace Webb (decd) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 67 (TC) 30 March 2009 Gordon Douglas Cairns (Personal Representative of Victor Douglas Eustace Webb (decd) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 67 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Sherburn Aero Club Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 65 (TC) 30 March 2009 Sherburn Aero Club Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 65 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Cable & Wireless plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs 27 March 2009 Cable & Wireless plc v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Lemon Consulting Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 35 (TC) 27 March 2009 Lemon Consulting Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 35 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

John Connell v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 34 (TC) 26 March 2009 John Connell v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 34 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Touch Logistics v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 33 (TC) 25 March 2009 Touch Logistics v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 33 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Chemists (a firm) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 66 (TC) 27 February 2009 Chemists (a firm) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 66 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Astra Zeneca UK Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 135 (TC) 16 January 2009 Astra Zeneca UK Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs ([2009] UKFTT 135 (TC)) concerns issues addressed in the judgment. The judgment should be checked directly for the full reasoning and outcome.

Generated case pages