Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT/2023/000084 - [2024] UKUT 00382 (TCC)

Fecha: 06-Nov-2024

Misunderstanding the evidence

Misunderstanding the evidence

41.

In his oral submissions, Mr Brown also said that the FTT had misunderstood the evidence, and had been wrong to find that Mr Orton was attempting to give incorrect evidence because he did not know that transcripts of the calls to HMRC’s helpline existed. He said (and Mr Puzey confirmed) that:

(1)

transcripts of Mr Orton’s calls had been provided to the original FTT panel at the time of the May 2019 hearing, but had been filed and served too late to be included in the Bundle;

(2)

the same incomplete Bundle had been made available to the FTT at the time of the rehearing; and

(3)

it was not until the second day of that hearing that their absence was noted and they were provided.

42.

We accept that it is clear from paragraph [249] that the FTT had not realised the transcripts had previously been provided to both parties; instead, it thought that they were new evidence which Mr Orton was seeing for the first time on the second day of the hearing, after he had filed and served his further witness statement.

43.

Although the points set out above were not in dispute before us, Mr Puzey said this was not a ground on which permission to appeal was granted, and Mr Brown accepted this was the case. But in any event that matters not, because in the light of the numerous other reasons justifying the FTT’s finding on credibility and reliability, any misunderstanding as to Mr Orton’s purpose would not be material.

44.

We therefore reject this ground of appeal.