UT-2023-000051 - [2024] UKUT 00114 (TCC)

We have decided that the Decision discloses no error of law. The FTT took account of (and balanced) a variety of factors in reaching its conclusion and we see no reason to interfere with its decision. Accordingly, we dismiss HMRC’s appeal.

Any application for costs in relation to this appeal must be made in writing and served on the Tribunal and the person against whom it is made within one month after the date of release of this decision as required by rule 10(5)(a) and (6) of the Tribunal Procedure (Upper Tribunal) Rules 2008.

We experienced some difficulty in ascertaining, from HMRC’s grounds of appeal, the exact nature of the errors of law which HMRC contended had been made in the Decision. The grounds of appeal were in a narrative form and seemed to consist of a series of interrelated complaints about and disagreements with the Decision.

This Tribunal has recently given guidance on the correct format for grounds of appeal in HMRC v Marlborough DP Limited [2024] UKUT 00098 (TCC) at [178] where the Tribunal said:

“Where an application for permission to appeal is made, either to the FTT or the UT, it seems to us essential that the application should identify, as clearly as possible, each individual ground of appeal. Ideally, each ground of appeal should be stated, as a numbered ground of appeal, in a single paragraph, which is clearly identified as stating that ground of appeal. If elaboration of a ground of appeal is required, this can be done in a set of following paragraphs, which are also clearly identified as elaborating upon that ground of appeal.”

This guidance was given in the context of an unsuccessful Edwards v Bairstow challenge but is, in our view, equally applicable to any appeal against a decision of the FTT on the basis of an alleged error of law. We would merely add that the grounds of appeal should identify the precise nature of the error of law and why it constitutes an error of law (e.g. the misinterpretation of the statutory provision or a relevant authority, the failure to take account of a relevant factor and reaching a factual finding for which there was no supporting evidence) and not merely stating that the party disagreed with the view expressed by the FTT or that the FTT erred in expressing a particular view (e.g. “the FTT erred in law by holding…”).