Stefan-Valentin Moscal v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 29 April 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 640 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

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.

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 treated as decisive that the TMA requires a written notice of appeal to be given to HMRC within the statutory time limit before notifying the Tribunal under s49D; absent proof HMRC received such prior notice, the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and HMRC cannot dispense with that statutory requirement.

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 observed that allegations of agent fraud, on the facts before it, did not displace tax figures the appellant accepted as correct. It also noted striking out for no reasonable prospect of success under Rule 8(3)(c) is discretionary rather than mandatory.

Warning

- The chunk contains repeated passages and formatting artifacts; care was taken to judgment the substantive material only. Notes include repeated passages and formatting artifacts; they may be materially incomplete.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML