Samuel Halpern v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 23 October 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 959 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This case concerns 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.
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
The ratio is that the First-tier Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear appeals against refusals to amend land transaction returns because such refusals are not among the specific decisions listed in paragraph 35, Schedule 10 of the Finance Act 2003; where the Tribunal has no statutory jurisdiction it must strike out the appeal under Rule 8(2) regardless of the merits or claimed exceptional circumstances.
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 indicated obiter that, if it had jurisdiction, it would have considered evidence on whether exceptional circumstances (including COVID-19) could justify extending the three-year time limit, and it noted the availability of alternative remedies such as judicial review or complaint to the Revenue Adjudicator, while observing time limits for judicial review may have expired.