![[2024] UKUT 00321 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Ground 1: the FTT erred by taking into account the merits of the appeal
Ground 1: the FTT erred by taking into account the merits of the appeal
Martland (to which the FTT referred and which it applied in the Decision) requires consideration of any obvious strengths or weaknesses of the appeal without descending into a full consideration of them. It was in line with that authority for the FTT to carry out the exercise that it did. I do not consider that Ground 1 raises any arguable error of law. I refuse permission to appeal on this ground.
- Heading
- JUDGE TRACEY BOWLER
- When can an appeal be made?
- The Decision
- Grounds of appeal
- My decision
- Consideration of the Grounds
- Ground 1: the FTT erred by taking into account the merits of the appeal
- Ground 2: the FTT applied too high a threshold by referring to the need for a “compelling” case which is higher than the threshold of “more than just arguable”
- Ground 3: the Applicant’s case is not rather weak
- Ground 4: an appeal would need to consider whether HMRCs’ decision-making was proportionate
- “A wide discretion is conferred on the Government and Parliament in devising a
- Ground 5 - the FTT has failed to take into account the large amount of the penalties and has granted HMRC a windfall
- Ground 6 – exceptional hardship
- “The core point is that (on the evidence available to the FTT) Mr Katib would suffer hardship if he (in effect) lost the appeal for procedural reasons. However, that again is a common feature which co
- Conclusions