![TC09660 - [2025] UKFTT 01226 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
The decision in Hoey v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 656 (“ Hoey ”) is authority for the proposition that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider HMRC’s discretion to impose any tax on Mr Brown rather th
The decision in Hoey v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 656 (“Hoey”) is authority for the proposition that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider HMRC’s discretion to impose any tax on Mr Brown rather than the employer.
In truth Mr Brown’s case is more akin to a complaint about being treated unfairly than evidencing substantive grounds for opposing the closure notice. This tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider unfair treatment. That is a matter for judicial review or a complaint to HMRC.
The fact that there has been a delay does not give Mr Brown a ground for appeal. Again, this is something which should be pursued by way of a complaint rather than via the tribunal.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS
- DISCUSSION
- There is no justification for HMRC saying that the tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to his appeal
- The Rangers decision was released after the tax year under consideration
- The loan was repaid and thus there is no liability to tax on it
- The effect of the decision in RFC 2012 plc (formerly the Rangers Football Club plc) v Advocate General for Scotland [2017] UKSC 45 (“ Rangers ”) is that the payments made by the employer to the trust
- The decision in Hoey v HMRC [2022] EWCA Civ 656 (“ Hoey ”) is authority for the proposition that this tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider HMRC’s discretion to impose any tax on Mr Brown rather th
- There is no justification in the complaints made about the statutory review process which was undertaken wholly properly The application of the loan charge legislation is not relevant to this appeal
- My view
- Conclusions