![TC09623 - [2025] UKFTT 01064 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
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 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 could be meaningfully progressed.
The onus is on the appellant to justify why HMRC should be barred. There is no assertion that the tribunal has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. It seems to be that the appeal cannot be heard fairly and justly because of the delay.
- 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