TC09548 - [2025] UKFTT 00700 (TC)

Fecha: 09-Jun-2025

Acceptance in correspondence that the SMR had been incorrectly applied?

Acceptance in correspondence that the SMR had been incorrectly applied?

69.

In relation to HMRC’s third reason, I said I had checked the correspondence and identified that after the fraud had been discovered, the Appellant had retested and confirmed the SMR position, although it had made a without prejudice offer using hindsight in relation to eleven LLP members.

70.

However, I went on to say:

(1)

that offer did not mean the original SMR position was incorrect, because SMR is required to be tested on a forward looking basis; and

(2)

the Appellant’s careful review and subsequent disclosure to HMRC does not provide a basis for dismissing as unreliable all the information it had provided.

Heading
Introduction
Publication of this decision
The Salaried Member Rules
The Compliance Check
The Determinations
The Appeal
The F&B Application
The First Decision
The case law
Schedule 36
Duty to give reasons and Reg 80
The Tribunal Rules
Overall conclusion
The PTA application in relation to the First Decision
The case law
The Grounds of the PTA Application
Ground 1: Rule 20
Ground 2: duty to give reasons
Ground 3: burden of proof
Ground 4: positive case
Ground 5: case management of the appeal
Ground 6: 4Site
Ground 7
Overall conclusion on the PTA Application relating to the First Decision
The Statement of case
The SoC Application
The law
Failure to provide full information?
Failure to provide “any evidence of what the SMR position is”
Acceptance in correspondence that the SMR had been incorrectly applied?
Reliance on the fraud?
Out of time Determinations
Overall conclusion
Directions
PTA Application in relation to the Second Decision
A bare assertion?
The TMA
The case law
Duty to give reasons
Discerning the Appellant’s case?
The Directions
Barring Order
Other submissions
Other
Next steps