In Peter Letts v HMRC (TC03830 – 22 July 2014) the FTT dismissed an application for costs.
The appellant had appealed against an assessment which HMRC had withdrawn by letter to the FTT. Mr Letts made an application for costs pursuant to rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules SI 2009/273.
The FTT could only make such an order against HMRC if it had acted ‘unreasonably in … defending or conducting the proceedings’.
Mr Letts’ contention was that HMRC had acted unreasonably in refusing his request that HMRC officers be called as witnesses forcing Mr Letts to apply for a witness summons at the cost of over £5 000. However the FTT found that HMRC’s refusal had not been unreasonable. The issue had not been whether HMRC had been careless but whether the appellant had been careless (under TMA...
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 Peter Letts v HMRC (TC03830 – 22 July 2014) the FTT dismissed an application for costs.
The appellant had appealed against an assessment which HMRC had withdrawn by letter to the FTT. Mr Letts made an application for costs pursuant to rule 10 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules SI 2009/273.
The FTT could only make such an order against HMRC if it had acted ‘unreasonably in … defending or conducting the proceedings’.
Mr Letts’ contention was that HMRC had acted unreasonably in refusing his request that HMRC officers be called as witnesses forcing Mr Letts to apply for a witness summons at the cost of over £5 000. However the FTT found that HMRC’s refusal had not been unreasonable. The issue had not been whether HMRC had been careless but whether the appellant had been careless (under TMA...
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:
