Constantin Rotaru v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 August 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 713 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal 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).
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 Tribunal's dispositive holding is that it lacks jurisdiction unless the appellant has first given written notice of appeal to the relevant HMRC officer; absent proof of such a written appeal, the Tribunal must strike out the appeal. Further, an email known to have failed delivery does not satisfy the statutory requirement of making the required written appeal to the relevant officer.
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 decision records that internal HMRC complaints and referrals to the Adjudicator do not substitute for a statutory appeal to the relevant officer for Tribunal jurisdiction. It also notes that, under Rule 8(4), the Tribunal must give the appellant an opportunity to make representations before striking out, and providing that opportunity does not make the appellant a "defendant."