TC09587 - [2025] UKFTT 00875 (TC)

With the consent of the parties, the form of the hearing was video. All parties attended via Microsoft Teams.

Prior notice of the hearing had been published on the gov.uk website, with information about how representatives of the media or members of the public could apply to join the hearing remotely in order to observe the proceedings. As such, the hearing was held in public.

The Appellant, by way of an application included in his Notice of Appeal, recorded as having been generated on 15 January 2024, seeks permission to commence a late appeal against the Respondents’ decision to deny a VAT credit in the sum of £110,455 relating to the VAT return period referenced 4/16. The original decision was communicated in a letter dated 17 July 2020, and the decision upon review was set out in a letter dated 17 December 2020.

The documents to which I was referred were in a hearing bundle of 210 pages. I have also seen an email dated 6 November 2024 addressed to the Appellant’s representative, Jeff Wine, sent from the Tribunal, asking for a response to the Respondent’s application for further and better particulars.

At the outset of the hearing, Mr Wine stated that an additional bundle of documents, comprising communications between the Appellant and HMRC that were not in the bundle, had been sent to the Tribunal and the Respondents on Friday 6 June 2025, along with a printout from Taxation.co.uk regarding the case of Dennison v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 364 (TC). I had not received that bundle or the authority. Mrs Skipper for the Respondents stated that she had received some documents from the Appellant, but not a bundle of 30 pages.

The Tribunal also noted that many of the documents referenced in the “Respondents’ Notice of Objection to Late Appeal Application”, were not present in the bundle. These documents were listed as a chronology in a section entitled “Background”. Mr Wine agreed that this chronology was correct and properly described the correspondence that was referenced. He stated that it was not necessary for the Tribunal to see the additional bundle of 30 pages as he would not be referring to any other documents aside from those described.

Both parties therefore agreed that the appeal could be heard and decided upon on the papers within the hearing bundle the chronology within the “Respondents’ Notice of Objection to Late Appeal Application”.