![TC09655 - [2025] UKFTT 01206 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
INTRODUCTION
INTRODUCTION
By an assessment dated 6 May 2022, HMRC assessed the appellant (or “the company”) to landfill tax of £425,092. A wrongdoing penalty was also issued to the company in the sum of £148,782.20. On 12 August 2022, the appellant appealed against these assessments.
The hearing of the appeal (“the hearing”) was listed for a four-day hearing between 2-5 December 2024 before Judge Popplewell and Mr Farooq (“the panel”). The vast majority of the first day of the hearing (“the Monday”) was taken up by evidence given by the appellant’s expert witness, Mr Luke Prazsky (“LP”).
On the second morning of the hearing (“the Tuesday”) negotiations took place between the parties, following which, at around lunchtime, the company orally withdrew its appeal. This was confirmed in writing by the tribunal to the parties on the following day. The tribunal’s letter explained that the company had 28 days in which to apply to reinstate its appeal.
An application to reinstate the appeal was made by the company (“the reinstatementapplication”) by way of an email dated 20 December 2024. That application indicated that the appellant “had to withdraw the appeal in challenging personal circumstances. It has now taken advice and wishes to take up the offer in the letter to reinstate the Appeal”.
This decision deals with the reinstatement application.
The appellant was represented by Mr Michael Paulin. HMRC were represented by Ms Charlotte Brown. While we have been much assisted by their clear submissions both written and oral, and whilst we have also considered the totality of the relevant evidence, we have not found it necessary to refer to each and every argument advanced or all of the authorities cited in reaching our conclusions.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE LAW
- Pierhead
- THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS
- Mr Borthwick’s written evidence
- There would also be reputational consequences if the assessment and penalty were not successfully appealed He thought LP’s evidence on the Monday “went well”
- He asked her to make the reinstatement application which she did Mr Borthwick’s oral evidence
- The reliability of Mr Bortwick’s evidence
- THE POST HEARING CONCESSION
- DISCUSSION
- When exercising discretion under Rule 2, we should consider the principle set out in Pierhead and in particular whether HMRC would be prejudiced by the reinstatement, what loss there would be to the a
- Prejudice to HMRC
- Loss to the appellant
- Merits
- The appellant’s grounds of appeal and skeleton argument make out a strong prima facie case Mr Borthwick’s evidence was that he was advised by counsel that he had a strong (60:40) case
- The overall balancing exercise When exercising our discretion under Rule 2, an important consideration is the reason why the appellant withdrew its appeal
- The balance of prejudice weighs heavily in dismissing the application to reinstate The FTT’s decision in Rolls Group & Others v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0404 (“ Rolls ”) citing Pierhead is authority for a number of propositions. Reinstatement is a matter of
- She couched her submissions for opposing the application under a number of headings as set out below No automatic right to reinstatement
- No good reasons
- And the real reason for reinstatement is that he has had an opinion from Dr Willets that the company has a better chance in the appeal than it had been given following those discussions with counsel
- Prejudice to the parties
- Merits
- The overriding objective
- Our view
- The factors
- The balancing exercise
- Conclusions