In GC Catana v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 June) HMRC began an enquiry into the return submitted by an individual (C) and subsequently issued an amendment against which C appealed. On the day of the hearing HMRC agreed to reduce the amount charged by the amendment. C applied for costs. The First-tier Tribunal rejected his application holding that HMRC had not acted unreasonably and the Upper Tribunal dismissed C’s appeal against this decision.
Why it matters: The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal decision that HMRC had not acted unreasonably so that the appellant was not entitled to costs. The decision here is in line with the earlier decision in Conlon v Hewitt (2005 SSCD 46).
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 GC Catana v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 1 June) HMRC began an enquiry into the return submitted by an individual (C) and subsequently issued an amendment against which C appealed. On the day of the hearing HMRC agreed to reduce the amount charged by the amendment. C applied for costs. The First-tier Tribunal rejected his application holding that HMRC had not acted unreasonably and the Upper Tribunal dismissed C’s appeal against this decision.
Why it matters: The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal decision that HMRC had not acted unreasonably so that the appellant was not entitled to costs. The decision here is in line with the earlier decision in Conlon v Hewitt (2005 SSCD 46).
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:
