In Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP v HMRC[2016] UKSC 24 (11 May 2016) the Supreme Court found that the FTT had not had jurisdiction to make a cost order.
The issue was the extent to which the jurisdiction of the FTT to make an order for costs was fettered by the provisions of the Tribunal Procedure (FTT) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (the ‘Rules’).
Eclipse’s appeal had been allocated as a complex case under rule 23 and Eclipse had served a request that ‘the proceedings be excluded from potential liability for costs or expenses’ under rule 10(1)(c). As the parties had been unable to agree a bundle the FTT had directed that Eclipse should prepare the bundles and that the cost of doing so should be shared. Eclipse’s agents had sent HMRC invoices for over £100 000 representing half the cost...
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 Eclipse Film Partners No 35 LLP v HMRC[2016] UKSC 24 (11 May 2016) the Supreme Court found that the FTT had not had jurisdiction to make a cost order.
The issue was the extent to which the jurisdiction of the FTT to make an order for costs was fettered by the provisions of the Tribunal Procedure (FTT) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (the ‘Rules’).
Eclipse’s appeal had been allocated as a complex case under rule 23 and Eclipse had served a request that ‘the proceedings be excluded from potential liability for costs or expenses’ under rule 10(1)(c). As the parties had been unable to agree a bundle the FTT had directed that Eclipse should prepare the bundles and that the cost of doing so should be shared. Eclipse’s agents had sent HMRC invoices for over £100 000 representing half the cost...
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:
