Foundry Supplies UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 25 July 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 656 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
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.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
A notification of tax loss letter that does not itself make a statutory decision denying input tax is not an appealable decision under VATA; jurisdiction depends on whether the document constitutes a decision within the statutory descriptions. In Kittel-type cases HMRC need only plead the primary facts (a tax loss plus patterns and connections indicating fraud) with sufficient particularity at the pleading stage rather than exhaustive particulars of third-party frauds.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal noted that ambiguous or non-standard HMRC correspondence may reasonably prompt a taxpayer to lodge an appeal to protect its position even where the correspondence is not itself appealable. It also indicated that where HMRC lack full detail of the precise fraud, pleading an "overall scheme" supported by described patterns and connections may be permissible, with fuller particulars and evidence to follow in disclosure and witness evidence.