In Invicta Foods v HMRC (TC03583 – 13 May 2014) the FTT found that HMRC had not acted unreasonably in defending an action.
The FTT had decided the appeal in favour of the taxpayer. The appeal related to the revocation of a binding tariff information (BTI) by HMRC and turned on the classification of meat products for customs duty.
First the appellant contended that HMRC’s decision to revoke the BTI had been unreasonable. The FTT disagreed. HMRC were entitled to revoke a BTI if they concluded reasonably that it may be wrong. This was not an unreasonable position.
On the classification point the FTT agreed that some of the arguments put forward by HMRC had been stronger than others. However it was ‘perfectly common and acceptable’ for a party to put forward a variety of arguments of different strengths.
In...
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 Invicta Foods v HMRC (TC03583 – 13 May 2014) the FTT found that HMRC had not acted unreasonably in defending an action.
The FTT had decided the appeal in favour of the taxpayer. The appeal related to the revocation of a binding tariff information (BTI) by HMRC and turned on the classification of meat products for customs duty.
First the appellant contended that HMRC’s decision to revoke the BTI had been unreasonable. The FTT disagreed. HMRC were entitled to revoke a BTI if they concluded reasonably that it may be wrong. This was not an unreasonable position.
On the classification point the FTT agreed that some of the arguments put forward by HMRC had been stronger than others. However it was ‘perfectly common and acceptable’ for a party to put forward a variety of arguments of different strengths.
In...
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:
