TC09548 - [2025] UKFTT 00700 (TC)

The PTA Application also refers to the part of the Second Decision set out at §73 above. HMRC submit that in those passages I had “discerned the Appellant’s case from documents outside of the Grounds of Appeal” and that as the Appellant had not referred to its understanding of the SMR position in its grounds of appeal, it was an error of law for the Tribunal to “extract” the Appellant’s case.

That submission misunderstands and mischaracterises that part of the Second Decision. The passages relate to the statement in the SoC that the Appellant had “failed to provide any evidence of what the SMR position is”.

In considering that statement, I first set out my understanding of the evidence already provided to HMRC as to what the Appellant considered the SMR position to be, and concluded by saying I was unable to understand why HMRC had said that the Appellant had not provided that evidence. Those passages and they do not “discern” or “extract” the Appellant’s case, and there is no error of law.