Upper Tribunal Tax and Chancery Chamber

UT/2024/000022 - [2025] UKUT 00309 (TCC)

Fecha: 29-Abr-2025

Grounds of Appeal

Grounds of Appeal

38.

The Appellant was granted permission by the Upper Tribunal (Judge Cannan) to advance three specified grounds. These are that the FTT failed to take account of various factors which individually or together would have weighed heavily in favour of granting the application, namely:

(1)

That HMRC had fairly identified in 2015 that the way in which the relevant supplies had been treated by the Company and Mr Pawar meant that there was no tax loss to HMRC. There had been an agreement in 2015 that if Mr Pawar took corrective action then the VAT assessment supporting the VAT PLN would be reduced to nil, or at least significantly reduced. Further, HMRC had accepted the existence of this agreement in 2018 at [24] of their statement of case in the Company’s appeal against the underlying VAT assessments, before that appeal was withdrawn by the liquidator.

(2)

That the PLN of £874,238 was likely to force Mr Pawar into bankruptcy.

(3)

The failings of Mr Pawar’s adviser. In particular the FTT failed to recognise there were exceptions to the general rule in Katib (that a failure by an adviser was attributed to the client).

39.

In relation to Ground 1 Judge Cannan mentioned that Mr Pawar also sought to rely on the fact that HMRC had withdrawn from resisting an appeal relating to the corporation tax PLN, which was based in effect on the same inaccuracy. He observed that this was “a new fact which was not available to the FTT” as it had post-dated the FTT’s decision. Judge Cannan considered it arguable that it was a relevant factor but made it clear that the issue of whether Mr Pawar should be granted permission to rely on new evidence was a matter for this tribunal.

40.

We bear in mind that we can only interfere with the FTT’s decision if we find that it involved an error of law. Before moving on to address the suggested errors of law, we note that Mr Bedenham KC, who appeared alongside Mr McNall for the Appellant, helpfully clarified that the Appellant’s case was put in terms of the FTT failing to take account of relevant factors as opposed to a challenge to the particular weight put on them by the FTT when balancing the factors. (As explained by the Upper Tribunal in WM Morrison Supermarkets PLC v HMRC [2023] UKUT 20 (TCC) at [45], a challenge to the evaluation or balancing of the factors would only amount to an error of law if perverse and that is not a challenge the Appellant brings, or has permission to bring).

41.

As we have indicated at [5] above we have decided to set aside and remake the FTT’s decision in consequence of the Upper Tribunal's subsequent decision in Medpro UT. We consider that we should deal with the original grounds of appeal before turning to the new ground based on Medpro UT.