This podcast outlines a First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber decision regarding a jurisdictional challenge in the case of ICL Europe Cooperatief U.A. vs HMRC. The core issue revolves around ICL's attempt to reclaim VAT paid on imported goods, specifically a £1,194,908.65 import VAT from April 2017, for which HMRC did not issue a C79 certificate, a crucial document for reclaiming input tax. HMRC sought to strike out ICL's first ground of appeal, arguing the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to address the non-issuance of the C79, considering it an administrative process best handled by judicial review. However, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed HMRC's application, asserting its jurisdiction to review whether HMRC's refusal to issue or authenticate the required document was unreasonable or in breach of EU law, given its direct impact on ICL's ability to recover input tax.

ICL Europe Cooperatief UA v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 917 (TC)

This podcast presents a Court of Appeal (Civil Division) judgment regarding an appeal brought by HMRC against Taylors Services Ltd & Ors. The central issue revolves around the National Minimum Wage Regulations 2015, specifically whether the time spent by "flock technicians" traveling from home to various farms constitutes "work" eligible for the National Minimum Wage. The document meticulously analyzes regulations 30 and 34 concerning "time work" and "travelling treated as hours of time work," distinguishing between actual work and deemed work. It also heavily references the Supreme Court's decision in Royal Mencap Society v Tomlinson-Blake to interpret the regulations, emphasizing that the regulations must be read as a whole and that ordinary commuting is generally excluded. Ultimately, the court dismisses HMRC's appeal, concluding that the Employment Appeal Tribunal (EAT) correctly determined the travel time was not "time work" under the regulations.

HMRC v Taylors Services Ltd & Ors [2025] EWCA Civ 956

This podcast details the First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision in the case of John Jones Civil Engineering and Groundworks Ltd v HMRC. The appellant, John Jones Civil Engineering and Groundworks Ltd (JJCE), appealed a £547,042 Landfill Tax assessment plus interest, stemming from the disposal of waste at Bage Farm. Key issues included whether HMRC's assessment was fair and lawful, particularly given the presence of an invasive plant (Crassula helmsii) that complicated waste removal. The tribunal examined HMRC's discretion in issuing the assessment and the appellant's arguments regarding reasonable excuse and conspicuous unfairness due to the Crassula. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, with the tribunal finding that HMRC exercised discretion reasonably and that the circumstances, while challenging, did not amount to conspicuous unfairness or a reasonable excuse to avoid the tax or interest.

John Jones Civil Engineering and Groundworks Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 918 (TC)

This podcast discusses the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision in the case of Clear Pay Payroll Limited v HMRC, specifically addressing a hardship application related to Value Added Tax (VAT). Clear Pay sought to appeal a significant VAT assessment without first having to pay or deposit the disputed amount, citing that such a requirement would cause hardship. The tribunal first confirmed its jurisdiction to hear such applications when HMRC is not satisfied that hardship exists, clarifying that the legal tests for hardship and for a company being wound up are distinct. While the abuse of process argument—that HMRC's pursuit of a winding-up petition was inconsistent with denying hardship—was raised, the Tribunal ultimately did not need to decide on this point. The Tribunal then focused on the substantive issue of hardship, concluding that Clear Pay met the criteria given its financial state and the "all or nothing" nature of the hardship test, thereby allowing the appeal to proceed without prior payment of the disputed VAT.

Clear Pay Payroll Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 916 (TC)

This podcast outlines the First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision in the case of Ian Milhill v HMRC, specifically referencing case number TC09600. The core of the matter revolves around Mr. Milhill's appeal against numerous tax assessments and penalties issued by HMRC, totaling £875,623. The Tribunal primarily addresses two key issues: whether Mr. Milhill was properly notified of these decisions and whether he should be granted permission for late appeals. The document details the factual findings, including the addresses used for correspondence and the alleged reasons for delay such as health issues and reliance on agents, ultimately concluding that notification was sufficient and permission for late appeals is refused based on the established legal framework and the significant, unexplained delays.

Ian Milhill v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 919 (TC)

This podcast discusses the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber addresses an application by Neil Lyon to file a late appeal against a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) issued by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) concerning Class 1 National Insurance Contributions (NICs). The Tribunal considers the length of the delay, the reasons provided for it, and all the circumstances of the case, following the three-stage approach outlined in Martland v HMRC. The Tribunal analyzes whether a letter sent by Lyon in June 2023 constituted a valid and timely appeal to HMRC, ultimately concluding that it did not. Given the significant delay and lack of a reasonable explanation, the Tribunal refuses Lyon permission to make a late appeal, noting the importance of respecting statutory time limits.

Neil Lyon v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 920 (TC)

This podcast details the First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision in the case of Darren Locke v HMRC, heard on July 23, 2025, with judgment delivered on August 7, 2025. The case concerns Mr. Locke's appeal against penalty assessments issued by HMRC for his failure to notify income tax chargeability related to rental income for the 2020/21 and 2021/22 tax years. The Tribunal analyzes whether the penalties were correctly issued, if the amounts were excessive, and whether Mr. Locke's behavior was deliberate or careless, ultimately dismissing his appeal. The ruling underscores the taxpayer's obligation to notify HMRC of taxable income, regardless of profit, and the penalties for non-compliance, even when prompted by an investigation.

Darren Locke v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 956 (TC)

This podcast outlines an appeal case heard by the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber involving DP Langan Limited (DPL) and HMRC. The core dispute revolves around income tax assessments raised by HMRC due to alleged overclaims made by DPL under the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme (CJRS). Specifically, the case scrutinizes the interpretation of paragraph 7.12 of the CJRS Direction, which addresses how employers can claim support payments. DPL argued that this paragraph allowed them to increase employee salaries and claim higher amounts, referencing a Chancellor's speech and disputing a prior ruling in Bandstream Media, while HMRC contended that 7.12 only allowed for correcting underpayments, not for inflating salaries for greater claims, aligning their argument with the Bandstream Media decision. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed DPL's appeal, concluding that DPL's interpretation of paragraph 7.12 was incorrect and the increases in salaries did not qualify for higher CJRS reimbursement.

DP Langan Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 958 (TC)

This podcast concerns a First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber decision regarding Cornwall College's appeal against HMRC assessments for output tax. The core issue revolves around whether grants received from government funding agencies (Education Funding Authority and Skills Funding Agency) constitute "consideration" for VAT purposes, specifically for educational and vocational training services provided free to students. The tribunal, bound by a prior Upper Tribunal decision in Colchester Institute Corporation v HMRC, determined that these grants do qualify as consideration, leading to the college's appeal being allowed. The decision details the factual background of Cornwall College's funding structure and outlines the relevant VAT legislation considered in the case.

Cornwall College v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 969 (TC)

This podcast outlines the Derby College Group's appeal against HMRC regarding VAT assessments, totaling nearly £2 million, related to government funding received. The core issue, known as the "Consideration Point," is whether grants from the Education Funding Agency (EFA) and Skills Funding Agency (SFA)—later merged into the Education and Skills Funding Agency (ESFA)—constitute "consideration" for the education and training the College provides free to students. The Tribunal Judge, bound by a prior Upper Tribunal decision in Colchester Institute Corporation v HMRC, ruled that these grants are indeed consideration, leading to the College's appeal being allowed. The decision details the College's operational context, its funding mechanisms, and the relevant Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA) and Principal VAT Directive (PVD) legislation pertinent to the case.

New tracks tagged #HMRC