![UT/2022/000157 - [2024] UKUT 00346 (TCC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_ICfrj4g.png){kind=logo}
The parties’ submissions in outline
The parties’ submissions in outline
Mr Hayhurst, for HMRC, says that the FTT failed to give adequate reasons for each of the matters that we have set out above. Even if it was not necessary for the FTT to address all the arguments that had been raised before it, the FTT had to explain why it reached its decisions (Fleming v Halifax Estate Agencies Ltd(trading as Colleys Professional Services) [2000] 1 WLR 377 at pp381-382). The FTT had given a lengthy decision (130 pages) but there was “hardly anything by way of reasoning”. The section addressing the “issues” (FTT [588]-[667]) was only 14 pages, most of which comprised summaries of the parties’ submissions rather than findings or detailed reasons. The FTT’s actual reasoning was limited to a few paragraphs.
Mr Webster KC and Mr Gurney, for the respondents, relied on their written submission in support of the FTT’s approach referring to Fleming, English v Emery Reimbold & Strick Ltd. [2002] EWCA Civ 605 (“English”) and Aria Technology v HMRC [2018] UKUT 363 (TCC) (“Aria”). As regards the specific matters in relation to Grounds 3, 4, and 5, they say the reasons for the FTT deciding the appeals in the respondents’ favour on all of these issues were very clear from the FTT Decision.
- Heading
- Introduction
- Background
- VAT
- Excise duties
- The FTT Decision
- The Grounds of Appeal
- Ground 1: the burden of proof
- Background
- The FTT Decision
- The parties’ submissions in outline
- The relevant case law principles
- The burden of proof in tax appeals
- The burden of proof in penalty appeals
- DLN
- Penalties under Schedule 24 FA 2007 and Schedule 41 FA 2008
- Ground 2: approach to the issues and evidence
- Background
- The FTT Decision
- Discussion
- Conclusion
- Ground 3: conclusions inconsistent with the underlying evidence
- Background
- The FTT decision
- The parties’ submissions in outline
- Discussion
- Application to the facts of this case
- Conclusion
- Ground 4: breach of “best judgment” requirement
- Background
- Relevant case law principles
- There are two distinct questions which arise where an assessment purports to be made under section 73(1) VATA: first, whether the assessment has been made under the power conferred by that section; an
- The test as to whether an assessment is made to the best of HMRC’s judgment is classically set out in the judgment of Woolf J in Van Boeckel , at page 292e-293a, where he said this
- As to whether an alleged error in an assessment is to be taken as evidence that the assessment was not made to the best of HMRC’s judgment, the relevant question is whether the mistake is consistent w
- There are, however, dangers in an over-rigid adherence to a two-stage approach (i.e. first, validity; second, quantum) to a challenge to a best judgment assessment. The important issue for the tribuna
- The FTT Decision
- The parties’ submissions in outline
- The only relevant test of whether the assessment met the best judgment requirement was whether the mistakes in the assessment were “consistent with an honest and genuine attempt to make a reasonable a
- Application to the facts of this case
- Ground 4
- Ground 5
- Conclusion
- Background
- In relation to Ground 3
- In relation to Ground 4
- In relation to Ground 5 Why, if there was a breach of the best judgement requirement, it rejected the Court of Appeal’s guidance in Pegasus Birds at [23-29] not to automatically set aside the whole assessment but instead to
- If the Tribunal considered Mr Foster’s failure to consider the York Wine bank statements was so “serious or fundamental” that it required the whole assessment to be set aside ( Pegasus Birds [29]), wh
- The parties’ submissions in outline
- Discussion
- Application to the facts of this case
- Conclusions