TC09548 - [2025] UKFTT 00700 (TC)

The sixth ground was that the First Decision contained an error of law because:

“The Tribunal was required to consider whether ‘the statement of case (taken together with the witness statements) enable the Appellant in this case to know the case it has to meet?’ (per 4Site Services London Ltd and Ors v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 143 [“4Site”] at para 34).”

It was not clear to me what point HMRC were making in this passage, as the F&B Application was made before the Statement of Case and witness statements had been filed. However, I assumed HMRC meant me to read the passage as a reference to a requirement that, in deciding the F&B Application, I was required to consider whether the grounds of appeal enabled HMRC to know the case they had to meet (rather than that the SoC and witness statements enabled the Appellant to know the case it had to meet).

Even on that assumption, there is no parallel between the position in 4Site and that of the Appellant. In 4Site, HMRC had first set out the reasons for their decision and the evidence on which it was based. Here, HMRC have provided no reasons for the Determinations.