Submissions
Submissions
In his written and oral submissions at the hearing, Mr Dyer supplemented these issues with the following submissions (which I have summarised):
The tribunal has an obligation to provide a fair and public hearing. The delay by HMRC of over 11 years makes that impossible. Any trial cannot be on the basis of the best available evidence.
The appellant cannot cross examine the officers who were involved in the investigation nor who made the discovery as they have retired. Nor can he obtain evidence from the appellant’s employer (it no longer exists) nor the promoter (it no longer exists either) nor any tax agent. Documents which might be relevant to the appellant’s case have been destroyed by HMRC. HMRC rely on a calculation error which is now going to be difficult to disprove.
If the appellant had realised that there was going to be this delay, then Mr Dyer would have contacted the relevant HMRC officers and asked them to explain the basis of the assessment and would have contacted the employer and the tax advisers to obtain an explanation as to the technical basis on which the returns had been made.
HMRC are relying on third party evidence. But, given the delay, the appellant will not be able to obtain third party evidence which might assist his case.
If the discovery had been made by HMRC, and it has become stale. In any event, in the appellant’s view there has been no discovery
At the time of submitting the tax returns, the appellant had no authorised agent and therefore any such returns had not been approved by the appellant. The appellant had never received a notice to file returns for the years in question.
Under Article 6 the appellant has a right to a fair and public hearing and the right to be informed of the charges against him within a reasonable time. HMRC have not fulfilled these obligations.
Imposition of the tax via the discovery assessments are in fact penalties and thus criminal in nature. This means that the appellant has the right to cross examine HMRC’s witnesses.
- Heading
- Introduction
- THE FACTUAL BACKGROUND
- DISCUSSION
- Submissions
- HMRC are in breach of their obligations under the taxpayer’s charter on which the appellant is entitled to rely
- The best approach to evidence is to rely on documents, but these are no no longer obtainable
- There were significant changes to the tax landscape in this area, given Rangers and Hoey , and the issues around the imposition of the loan charge. These needed to be clarified before these appeals co
- There has been no delay since the submission of the appeal to the tribunal
- There is no evidence that HMRC have failed to cooperate with the tribunal in furtherance of the overriding objective
- Staleness is not relevant in this context. This is not a situation where an assessing officer has sat on discovery before issuing the assessment. Furthermore, given the decision in HMRC v Tooth [2021]
- My view
- Pleading the fair trial issue
- Conclusions
![TC09623 - [2025] UKFTT 01064 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)