![[2024] UKUT 00321 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
JUDGE TRACEY BOWLER
JUDGE TRACEY BOWLER
This was an oral hearing conducted by the CVP video system. I was satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to hold the hearing remotely given the nature of the hearing and the fact that the Applicant could not attend in person.
The hearing was to consider the application (the “Application”) for permission to appeal against the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (the “FTT”) released on 4 August 2023 (“the Decision”) following my previous refusal of the paper application for permission to appeal. The FTT had previously refused permission to appeal in a decision dated 20 October 2023.
The hearing was attended by the Applicant who was unrepresented. No representative of HMRC attended.
- 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