TC09672 - [2025] UKFTT 01262 (TC)

HMRC’s position is that, as regards the input tax claims subject to this strike out application, the Appellant produced no relevant evidence at all.

Mr Joseph argued that he had produced a lot of evidence during the nearly 11 months of the enquiry. If it was not provided it was because HMRC failed to ask for it. In any event additional information could be provided to bridge the gap. Modern business practices mean that evidence can be provided by alternative means such as electronic invoices, bank statements, e mail confirmations and digital payment confirmations. Further, this type of factual issue is inappropriate for a strike out application and should be considered in a full hearing.

Whether or not HMRC exercised its discretion under Regulation 29(2) in inherently fact sensitive and not particularly suitable to a strike out application. However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction is supervisory and so the bar for the taxpayer to overcome is high.

In the current circumstances Mr Joseph argues that he has provided a lot of evidence and he can provide more. The only evidence a Tribunal can consider is that which was provided at the time HMRC exercised their discretion not to accept alternative evidence. For current purposes I take that to be either the assessment of 8 February 2024 or the review conclusion letter of 18 April 2024.

I note from the hearing bundle that HMRC has made a number of requests in 2023 for documents. Mr Joseph has responded to those requests. However, whilst the evidence that has been provided by Mr Joseph may be extensive, it relates to his purchase of the goods and services. The Appellant did not have a bank account, the bank statements produced to HMRC were in Mr Joseph’s own name and Mr Joseph has not pointed to any evidence that the Appellant bought the goods and services which are the subject of the input tax claim.

In the circumstances, and conscious that in a full hearing the Appellant would need to overcome a high bar in showing that HMRC reached a decision that no reasonable body of Commissioners could have reached, I find that the Appellant has no realistic prospect of success on this point.