In Goldenstate v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 568 (18 July 2017) the FTT refused to amend grounds of appeal and confirmed that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of an APN.
Goldenstate had implemented a scheme and HMRC had issued an APN under FA 2014 s 219(4)(b) and then a penalty for late payment of the APN.
Goldenstate appealed against the penalty. Having first claimed reasonable excuse the company applied to amend its ground of appeal in order to challenge the validity of the APN. It contended that HMRC’s enquiry into its return had been out of time so that there had been no open enquiry and condition A in s 219(2)(a) had not been satisfied.
The FTT refused the application to amend the grounds of appeal noting that there was no good reason for...
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 Goldenstate v HMRC [2017] UKFTT 568 (18 July 2017) the FTT refused to amend grounds of appeal and confirmed that it does not have jurisdiction to consider the validity of an APN.
Goldenstate had implemented a scheme and HMRC had issued an APN under FA 2014 s 219(4)(b) and then a penalty for late payment of the APN.
Goldenstate appealed against the penalty. Having first claimed reasonable excuse the company applied to amend its ground of appeal in order to challenge the validity of the APN. It contended that HMRC’s enquiry into its return had been out of time so that there had been no open enquiry and condition A in s 219(2)(a) had not been satisfied.
The FTT refused the application to amend the grounds of appeal noting that there was no good reason for...
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:
