![[2025] UKUT 00031 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Conclusions
Conclusion
For the reasons set out above, I am not satisfied either of the two grounds advanced disclose any arguable error of law in the FTT Decision. Permission to appeal is therefore refused.
Signed: Date: 24 January 2025 SWAMI RAGHAVAN JUDGE OF THE UPPER TRIBUNAL |
Issued to the parties on: 28 January 2025 |
- Heading
- Background
- Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction on appeal
- Grounds of appeal and Decision
- Ground 1 – Apparent Bias
- Ground 2 – Edwards v Bairstow challenge to finding that Appellant had only been successful in respect of Item C (paragraphs 59-65 of the FTT Decision)
- Error in Paras. 10, 50 and 55 – that the only items before the FTT were a light tan coloured leatherette handbag and a blue suedette purse
- Error in Paras. 32 and 33 – When setting out the evidence of Mrs. Wilkes for HMRC, the FTT failed to take into account that both parties accepted that the six samples shown to her, which she did not u
- Error in Paras. 82 and 87 – that, in effect, the Appellant had not made a positive case about the remaining goods
- Conclusions