TC09588 - [2025] UKFTT 00876 (TC)

This tribunal is, as is often said, a creature of statute. Its jurisdiction is therefore circumscribed by statute and if the tribunal does not have jurisdiction, then neither party can confer such jurisdiction on it. And I must strike out an appeal where the tribunal has no jurisdiction.

The relevant statutory provision in these applications is section 31 TMA which provides a right of appeal against “any conclusion stated or amendment made by a closure notice…”.

HMRC enquired into the appellant’s tax returns for the years in question. They closed their enquiries by issuing the closure notices. These “make the amendments of the return required to give effect to [the officer’s] conclusions”.

To my mind it is clear that the extent of the amendments are limited to the contents of the closure notices themselves, and the contents of the tax calculations which were attached to those closure notices, and which were referred to therein. The amendments do not extend to the contents of the self-assessment statements which are simply a rolling tally of the amounts of tax which a taxpayer owes (or is owed).

If, therefore, the appellant’s appeal is against the former documents, then the tribunal has jurisdiction. If the appeal is against the latter, then it does not.

I am sympathetic to HMRC’s position. It is not entirely clear from the appellant’s pleaded case whether, under the guise of appealing against the amendments, he is in fact appealing against the amount of tax which he is being asked to pay through the self-assessment statements. Certainly, the correspondence seems to focus on the amount which these statements are asking him to pay.

However, I am persuaded by Ms Brown that the challenge is not limited to the contents of those statements, but to the conclusions reached in the closure notices, and the amendments which reflect those conclusions in the closure notices themselves and the tax calculations. It is certainly open for the appellant to challenge those on the basis that they are numerically wrong on the grounds that the appellant has credits and reliefs which are available to be set off against them. Indeed, I take judicial notice of the fact that in previous cases with which I have been involved, this is precisely what HMRC have done when amending a taxpayer’s return.

I am also conscious that strike out is a draconian remedy, and so I am prepared to interpret any ambiguity in the appellant’s position, in his favour.

I therefore accept that the appellant’s appeal is against the amendments made by the closure notices and the tax calculations and thus the tribunal does have jurisdiction. I therefore dismiss the strike out application.

However, the tax calculations set out, in clear terms, the basis for the amendments. Whilst the appellant might consider that they are incorrect as he has the aforesaid reliefs and credits which can be offset, then that is for him to justify. He seems to have been able to compile a spreadsheet which suggests that his net position, arising from these returns, is that he is owed £200,000 by HMRC. It is his submission that he cannot be certain of this figure because he does not understand the basis on which HMRC have reached their conclusion regarding the amount that he owes.

But as I have said, he has no appeal rights against the self-assessment statements, only against the amendments made by the closure notices and the tax calculations. The tax calculations set out, very clearly, what HMRC have done to reach the numerical amendments to the appellant’s returns for the tax years in question. It is now for the appellant to set out the legal and factual basis of his challenge to those calculations. His current pleadings go nowhere close to fulfilling his obligation to do this in sufficient detail to enable HMRC to understand his case.

I do not imagine that this will cause the appellant much difficulty as the spreadsheet presumably reflects the principles of this challenge even if he cannot be absolutely certain of the numbers.

Once the appellant has provided this information, HMRC can draft their statement of case setting out their grounds (if any) for their challenge. The battle lines are then drawn. At the trial, the appellant can present the evidence justifying his position, and HMRC will need to be in a position to justify their objections.

So, I allow the f and bp application.

I reject the disclosure application. The onus is on the appellant to provide details of its challenge to the closure notices and tax calculations. It is not for HMRC to justify its computations, although, as I have mentioned above, there may come a time when it will need to do so.

It also seems to me that the disclosure application comes dangerously close to requesting information and documents which are relevant to the self-assessment statements rather than to the amendments made by the closure notices and the tax calculations. And of course I have no jurisdiction over the former.