Stuart Moore v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 17 December 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1599 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

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: medium

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.

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: medium

The Tribunal's ratio is that it lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate complaints about HMRC's internal administrative processes or officer conduct (those matters lie to judicial review or HMRC complaint procedures), and that an appeal against a VAT assessment based on an HMRC estimate cannot proceed where the taxpayer has not made a VAT return for the period; because the appellant accepted he met the registration threshold, his appeal lacked reasonable prospects of success.

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 judgment observes that allegations of unreasonable treatment by HMRC, prior costs awards, or unpleaded assertions (such as incorrect application of the traders' margin scheme) do not convert such complaints into matters justiciable by the Tribunal and, without fuller pleaded grounds or a return, do not establish a reasonable prospect of success on strike-out.