Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT (Tax & Chancery) UT/2023/000096 - [2024] UKUT 00203 (TCC)

Fecha: 02-May-2024

HMRC’s submissions

HMRC’s submissions

54.

Ms Choudhury submitted that all of the changes were capable of being made by the FTT under Rule 37 as being in the nature of accidental slips or omissions or clerical mistakes, drawing attention to:

(1)

[116] – similar reasoning was already present in [156];

(2)

[143] – this cannot be regarded as anything more than a correction. There was evidence of the Appellants’ actions (or lack of action) in relation to establishing a trade before entering into the Pendulum Contract as noted in [143], and expanded on by reference to each Appellant in [144] and [145]. There was no direct evidence of their knowledge of the requirement to establish a trade given their inability to recall what, if any, advice was given to them by Montpelier; and

(3)

[149] – the FTT may have considered that the inclusion of the final sentence was confusing as it would require further explanation and therefore decided simply to omit it. The omission falls far short of an attempt to go beyond clarification. Moreover, a similar statement can still be found in the Revised Decision at [171].

55.

HMRC acknowledged that it was not entirely free from doubt that the Original Decision was revised under Rule 37, referring to the facts that at the end of the Revised Decision it is said to have been amended under Rule 41 and the release date has been changed to 25 September 2023.

56.

In the alternative, Ms Choudhury submitted that the changes were amendments the FTT was entitled to make following a review under Rule 41 and are in accordance with the guidance given in JS and Vital Nut as being clarificatory in nature regarding what had already been decided.