In HMRC v N Rogers and another [2019] UKUT 406 (30 December 2019) the UT found that a notice issued under TMA 1970 s 8 does not need to identify an HMRC officer responsible for the notice.
HMRC appealed two decisions of the FTT which concerned penalties for late filing of self-assessment returns.
HMRC’s first ground of appeal concerned the scope of the FTT’s jurisdiction. In Goldsmith [2019] UKUT 325 the UT had concluded that the FTT did have jurisdiction to consider an alleged defect of a notice to file issued under TMA 1970 s 8 when deciding whether a penalty for non-compliance was valid. HMRC contended that the Goldsmith decision had been wrongly decided but the UT disagreed with this ground of appeal.
HMRC also challenged the FTT’s conclusion that for a notice to be given ‘by an officer of the Board’...
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 HMRC v N Rogers and another [2019] UKUT 406 (30 December 2019) the UT found that a notice issued under TMA 1970 s 8 does not need to identify an HMRC officer responsible for the notice.
HMRC appealed two decisions of the FTT which concerned penalties for late filing of self-assessment returns.
HMRC’s first ground of appeal concerned the scope of the FTT’s jurisdiction. In Goldsmith [2019] UKUT 325 the UT had concluded that the FTT did have jurisdiction to consider an alleged defect of a notice to file issued under TMA 1970 s 8 when deciding whether a penalty for non-compliance was valid. HMRC contended that the Goldsmith decision had been wrongly decided but the UT disagreed with this ground of appeal.
HMRC also challenged the FTT’s conclusion that for a notice to be given ‘by an officer of the Board’...
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:
