TC09681 - [2025] UKFTT 01333 (TC)

This issue arises only because I have found in HMRC’s favour on both issues above.

As set out above, Moir has denied that it was a promoter of notifiable arrangements. However, Moir has not specifically addressed whether it has a reasonable excuse for its failures to comply with its obligations under Section 308 and/or 313A FA 2004. The onus is on Moir in his regard. I agree with HMRC that the test to be applied in relation to any excuse put forward is that set out by the Upper Tribunal in Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 156.

In their submissions HMRC have noted Moir’s letter to HMRC dated 26 April 2022, and suggested that this is the only reasonable excuse Moir has suggested. In that letter Moir states:

I have found (above) that Moir’s majority shareholder was Ms Deanna Moss until May 2019, and has been Ms Monica Varo since May 2019. However, there is no explanation of how this change of major shareholder is relevant to Moir’s failure to comply with its obligations under Section 308 and/or 313A. The deadline for Moir to comply with its obligations under Section 308 was five days after first becoming aware of any transactions forming part of the Jarvis annuity arrangements. I have found above that Moir was aware of Jarvis’ arrangements with individual RMN in April 2018. There is no explanation of how the prospective sale of Moir prevented Moir from complying with its Section 308 obligations. If there is an undisclosed reason for Moir’s non-compliance prior to May 2019, no reason has been advanced for why these obligations were not complied with once the sale of Moir’s shares had been concluded.

The deadline for Moir to comply with its obligations under Section 313A was 17 February 2021. The sale of Moir had concluded 21 months earlier. There is no explanation of how that long ago completed sale could be relevant to Moir’s Section 313A non-compliance.

I do not consider that Moir being put up for sale, or being sold, constitutes a reasonable excuse for a failure to comply with an obligation under Section 308 or 313A FA 2004.

I have not identified any other explanation put forward by Moir for why it has not complied with either its Section 308 or Section 313A obligations. In these circumstances I decide issue 3 in favour of HMRC. Moir has not demonstrated a reasonable excuse for its non-compliance with its obligations under either Section 308 or Section 313A FA 2004.