TC09651 - [2025] UKFTT 01148 (TC)

Fecha: 08-Sep-2025

Conclusions

23.In determining the application for disclosure, I am guided by the remarks of Rose LJ in Smart Price Midlands Limited v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 841:

"[40] Disclosure of documents is not an end in itself but a means to an end, namely to ensure that the tribunal has before it all the information which the parties reasonably require the tribunal to consider in determining the appeal. It is only one step in the overall management of the case which should, as the appeal progresses towards a substantive hearing, identify and if possible narrow the issues between the parties. The scope of the issues in contention at the trial depends in part on the legal test to be applied by the tribunal and in part on the parties' respective positions as to which elements of that test are in contention.

[41]...The extent to which it is useful for everything on HMRC's files on the appellant trader to be available to the tribunal at trial will differ greatly in those different appeals. HMRC argue that the trend in civil proceedings in recent years has been to reduce the amount of disclosure ordered. I would prefer to say that the trend has been to ensure that disclosure is more closely related to the issues in dispute in the proceedings."

24.I am not satisfied that the information sought by the Appellant’s application is relevant to the issues in dispute in this appeal. The appeal concerns HMRC’s decisions and associated assessments, and not the terms of any settlement offers made to, or not made, to the Appellant or others. I do not agree with the Appellant’s assertion that the request for all documents in connection with the settlement in 2015 with large companies for somewhere in the region of 15% in connection with EBTs, and an explanation as to why users of the remuneration trust were not offered the same, is relevant to the legal analysis of the underlying structure in this appeal.

25.Any application for specific disclosure must be tested by reference to relevance and proportionality, and relevance must be considered in the context of the matters which are within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to determine (see Ford v FCA [2016] UKUT 41 (TCC) at [38]). The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to review or direct the terms of settlement offers made by HMRC to other parties. To the extent that the application seeks to support arguments for improved settlement terms, it falls outside the Tribunal’s statutory remit.

26.The Appellant argues that the overriding objective requires the parties and the Tribunal to further the interests of justice and fairness, which includes avoiding any unnecessary delay and formality in proceedings, and that the provision of particulars and specific disclosure from HMRC may well avoid the need for any further pleadings required from the parties and provide for the early settlement of this appeal because of the potential to avoid reputational damage to HMRC through settlement, if it turns out upon specific disclosure that HMRC had offered heavily discounted deals to corporate users of the EBT structures.

27.I am, however, not persuaded by these arguments. I am not satisfied that the requested disclosure would materially assist in determining the substantive issues in this appeal. The application appears to be directed toward broader policy or fairness arguments, which are not within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction and not, in my view, compatible with a proper consideration of the issues in this appeal.

28.In arriving at my decision, I have considered the Appellant’s submissions regarding the potential for ADR. However, the refusal of this application does not preclude the parties from engaging in ADR should they consider it appropriate.

29.In these circumstances, granting the Appellant’s application would not, in my view, be in the interests of fairness and justice.

conclusion

30.The Appellant’s application for a direction that HMRC provide further and better particulars and for disclosure of documents is therefore refused.

Right to apply for permission to appeal

31.This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.

Release date: 30^th SEPTEMBER 2025