TC09548 - [2025] UKFTT 00700 (TC)

Fecha: 09-Jun-2025

Other submissions

Other submissions

97.

HMRC also submit that that “any reasonable Tribunal would have considered” that the SoC Application should be determined at a hearing, and that if the Tribunal was going to decide it on the papers, the Tribunal should have advised the parties in advance and given them the opportunity to object or make further submissions.

98.

In deciding the SoC Application, I took into account the delays which have already occurred; the key points were summarised in the First Decision and it was unnecessary to repeat them in the Second Decision, but they were as follows:

(1)

The Compliance Check began in July 2016, nearly nine years ago, and related to the periods after the introduction of the SMR in 2014, over ten years ago.

(2)

The Determinations covered the years 2017-18 through to 2019-20, so those periods began eight years ago.

(3)

They were issued on 8 March 2024, over a year before either Decision was made.

(4)

The Appellant filed its appeal with the Tribunal on 8 April 2024. The Tribunal Rules require that HMRC file and serve a SoC within 60 days, see Rule 25(1)(c).

(5)

After the Appellant filed its Notice of Appeal, HMRC applied for a stay before filing its SoC; the Appellant consented, and the stay was granted.

(6)

On 13 February 2025, the Appellant refused to agree to a further stay suggested by HMRC.

(7)

HMRC filed and served their SoC on 26 March 2025; this was thus around ten months later than the date which would normally be required under the Tribunal Rules.

99.

I also took into account that the SoC Application was a response to the SoC, and the SoC turn followed the First Decision; in other words, it had already been made clear to HMRC by the First Decision that the SoC needed to set out their reasons for issuing the Determinations. However, it was plain from the wording of the SoC that HMRC had failed to do so. Thus, the Second Decision did not relate to a new issue, and the SoC Application was not a free-standing application.

100.

A relevant factor when considering the procedural fairness of the Second Decision is that the parties were told that once HMRC had complied, I would “consider whether a case management hearing was required further to clarify the position”. It was plainly premature to hold such a hearing before HMRC had explained the basis on which they issued the Determinations.