The grounds behind HMRC’s successful appeal in the Rogers case.
You may remember the First Tier Tribunal Rogers case and other cases where the FTT ruled against HMRC regarding whether a notice to file needed to be issued by a ‘flesh and blood’ officer.
HMRC appealed and it was successful in its appeal on grounds 2, 3 and 4 below:
The FTT had no jurisdiction, in the taxpayers’ appeals against penalties imposed under Schedule 55, to consider whether a valid notice under s8 of TMA had been issued
The FTT wrongly applied a literal interpretation of s8 of TMA by concluding that it required an officer to be identified when a notice to file under s8 was issued
The FTT was wrong to conclude that s8(1) of TMA required a notice to file to be issued by a ‘flesh and blood’ officer rather than a computer
Even if it had the requisite jurisdiction, the FTT should not have considered whether a notice under s8 of TMA was issued, or validly issued, because that was not a pleaded ground of challenge in the taxpayers’ Notices of Appeal and was not, therefore, in dispute between the parties. HMRC was denied procedural fairness by the FTT considering a matter that was not in dispute.