Overall conclusion
Overall conclusion
I ended the First Decision with the following conclusion:
“HMRC are required to give reasons for their decisions, as a matter of public law. It is thus not sufficient for HMRC to say, as they now do, that once they have made an assessment, the burden rests on the Appellant, and it is then the Appellant which must provide F&B particulars in relation to the application of the Salaried Member Rules. To use colloquial language, HMRC have made a broad brush decision, and are now asking the Tribunal to assist them in requiring the Appellant to colour in the detail. It is instead for HMRC to set out its position in compliance with Rule 25(2)(b).”
- 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
![TC09548 - [2025] UKFTT 00700 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)