TC09548 - [2025] UKFTT 00700 (TC)

HMRC submitted that the Tribunal had “failed to consider” whether Appellant had not complied with its obligation under Rule 20(2)(f) to set out “the grounds for making its appeal”. Plainly, I did consider whether the Appellant had complied with that Rule, see the text at §28 above, and found that it had done so.

HMRC supported their submission by referring to various judgments, including Bluecrest and Allpay Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 273. The latter said that an Appellant must provide sufficient detail in its grounds of appeal to:

“give the party opposite sufficient notice of the case which is being made against him; what is important is that the pleading should make clear the general nature of the case of the pleader; pleadings are critical to identify the issues and extent of the dispute between the parties.”

That is of course correct: the same approach formed the basis of my decision in Rapid Brickwork on which HMRC relied when making the F&B Application. However, that normal position is predicated on HMRC having first made a reasoned decision against which the appellant has appealed.

The position is different where, as here, HMRC have given no reasons at all for their decisions. In that situation, the Appellant can only do its best on the basis of what HMRC has provided, and that is what has happened in this case. There was no error of law in my finding that the Appellant had satisfied the requirements of Rule 20.