![TC09599 - [2025] UKFTT 00918 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
Grounds of appeal
Grounds of appeal
In the original Notice of Appeal, the Appellant set out 3 Grounds of Appeal. Two of these were withdrawn before the hearing, with the remaining original Ground of Appeal being (broadly) that HMRC did not take a number of issues into account when making the assessment.
Shortly before the hearing, the Appellant filed a Skeleton Argument setting out what HMRC said were new Grounds of Appeal, and the Appellant said were (mainly) not new Grounds, but further particularising the first Ground.
These issues were:
Whether the assessment made was void on the basis that it failed to use a permitted method of calculation. In the alternative, whether the assessment should be voided as failure to use a permitted method of calculation and related errors meant it could not have been made to best judgment.
Whether the assessment made was unlawful as there was no exercise of HMRC’s discretion not to assess, or at least that it was unreasonable having failed to take into account or give sufficient weight to reasons why the Appellant had not removed the waste by 1 April 2018 in order to avoid liability.
Whether due to the inability, inadvisability or impracticality of moving the waste, it was conspicuously unfair for HMRC to pursue the assessment such that it should be quashed.
Whether due to the inability, inadvisability or impracticality of moving the waste, the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for the waste remaining in situ by 1 April 2018 and thereby being deemed to have made a deposit on that date.
Whether the circumstances were such that it would not be in the interests of justice to charge interest at the prescribed rate or at all even if not amounting to a reasonable excuse.
HMRC objected to these new Grounds of Appeal on the basis that they were very late, that it would be prejudicial to HMRC to allow them as HMRC did not have time to investigate some of the matters thoroughly, and that this case had already been running for many years and further delay would not be in the interests of justice.