SNM Pipelines Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 27 July 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 231 (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
SNM Pipelines Ltd challenged HMRC assessments and filed a notice of appeal in August 2017 but had not paid the disputed VAT nor made a hardship application at that time. The First-tier Tribunal held that the 2017 filing nonetheless constituted a valid notice of appeal; the tribunal may not proceed with the appeal until payment is made or hardship relief granted, but the appeal itself was timely and is admitted. HMRC subsequently accepted the hardship application, enabling the appeal to go forward.
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 concluded that filing a notice of appeal (rule 20 FTT Rules) can validly start an appeal even if statutory requirements to pay disputed VAT or apply for hardship (VATA ss 84(3)/(3B)) have not yet been met; provisions such as rule 22(2) are procedural and relate to the tribunal’s ability to proceed with or "entertain" the appeal (e.g. listing/hearing), not to the validity of the initial filing. Consequently a late procedural compliance does not negate that the appeal was properly made in time.
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 cites prior authorities (Hubbard, Widnell, O’Brien) as supportive of a distinction between making an appeal and the tribunal beginning to entertain it. The tribunal also indicated, by way of comment, that had it been required to grant permission for a late appeal the delay in this case would likely have justified refusal given the lack of good reason and prejudice to HMRC.