In Bridgecom International Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 3 (TCC) (7 January 2025) the UT dismissed Bridgecom International Ltd’s (BIL’s) appeal against an adverse costs decision of the FTT.
The FTT had notified BIL’s representative Accura Accountants Ltd (Accura) that the case had been allocated to the complex category giving BIL 28 days to opt out of the costs shifting regime. In this case BIL submits that the FTT’s notice was invalid so the costs shifting regime did not apply.
BIL’s argument is that the FTT should have given notice to BIL rather than Accura because the appointment of Accura had not been validly notified to the FTT. Rule 11(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules SI 2009/273 (‘the FTT rules’) provides that if a...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Bridgecom International Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKUT 3 (TCC) (7 January 2025) the UT dismissed Bridgecom International Ltd’s (BIL’s) appeal against an adverse costs decision of the FTT.
The FTT had notified BIL’s representative Accura Accountants Ltd (Accura) that the case had been allocated to the complex category giving BIL 28 days to opt out of the costs shifting regime. In this case BIL submits that the FTT’s notice was invalid so the costs shifting regime did not apply.
BIL’s argument is that the FTT should have given notice to BIL rather than Accura because the appointment of Accura had not been validly notified to the FTT. Rule 11(2) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules SI 2009/273 (‘the FTT rules’) provides that if a...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes: