![[2024] UKUT 00321 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
Ground 5 - the FTT has failed to take into account the large amount of the penalties and has granted HMRC a windfall
Ground 5 - the FTT has failed to take into account the large amount of the penalties and has granted HMRC a windfall
The penalties are prescribed by statute. There is no jurisdiction for the FTT to have found them to be excessive, although they may have been reduced if the appeal was admitted and what are described in the legislation as “special circumstances” are found to exist. However, the FTT found no basis to conclude that special circumstances exist in the Applicant’s case and given the other unchallenged findings of fact I see no basis on which that conclusion could be challenged. There is no windfall in HMRC imposing penalties which are prescribed in legislation.
Ground 5 is therefore unarguable and 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