This podcast outlines the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision in the case of Brian David Webb v HMRC. The case concerns Mr. Webb's appeal against several decisions made by HMRC, including the disallowance of VAT input tax claims, the issuance of VAT assessments and penalties for various periods, and his deregistration for VAT. Mr. Webb, a builder by trade, had claimed VAT repayments on expenses related to properties he owned, arguing they were commercial business assets, despite having ceased external building work and having no rental income from these properties for many years. The Tribunal ultimately dismissed Mr. Webb's appeal, finding that he was not engaged in an economic activity for VAT purposes and that the property transactions were exempt from VAT, thus upholding HMRC's original decisions regarding the disallowed claims, assessments, penalties, and his VAT deregistration.

Brian David Webb v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 00987 (TC)

This podcast discusses the Upper Tribunal's refusal to grant Josephine Mary Hayes permission to appeal a decision made by the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). The FTT had dismissed Hayes's request to close an inquiry by HMRC into her 2019/20 tax return. The Upper Tribunal determined that the FTT made no arguable errors of law in concluding that HMRC had not extended the tax filing deadline, meaning Hayes's return was filed late, and thus HMRC's inquiry was validly opened. Furthermore, the tribunal found that the FTT correctly interpreted Section 118(2) of the Taxes Management Act 1970, which does not extend filing deadlines but only alleviates penalties for late filing, and that Hayes's public law arguments regarding "abuse of power" lacked factual basis and would typically fall under judicial review jurisdiction, not the FTT's.

Josephine Mary Hayes v HMRC [2025] UKUT 275 (TCC)

This podcast discusses challenges to decisions made by His Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regarding repayment claims under the Disguised Remuneration Repayment Scheme (DRRS). The claimants, Fluid System Technologies (Scotland) Limited, Fluid System Technologies (London) Limited, and Airedale Chemical Company Ltd, sought refunds of tax amounts previously paid to avoid the Loan Charge legislation. The core of the dispute centers on HMRC's interpretation of two eligibility conditions for repayment: whether HMRC had "no power to recover" the relevant amounts at the time of settlement, and whether the claimants had made "reasonable disclosure" of the loans in their tax returns. The court ultimately upheld HMRC's refusals for repayment, finding that the conditions for eligibility were not met.

Fluid System Technologies (Scotland) Limited & Anor v HMRC [2025] UKUT 278 (TCC)

This podcast discusses a Court of Appeal (Civil Division) judgment regarding an appeal brought by HM Revenue and Customs (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 outlines an appeal by the City of Portsmouth College against HMRC's VAT assessments, specifically regarding whether government funding agency grants for education and vocational training constitute "consideration" for VAT purposes. The First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber determined the case without a hearing, primarily relying on the precedent set by Colchester Institute Corporation v HMRC [2020] UKUT 368 (TCC), which concluded that such grants do qualify as consideration. The college successfully argued that the output tax assessed was not due, leading to the appeal being allowed in part, with one assessment withdrawn by HMRC due to a lack of jurisdiction. The decision highlights the complexities of VAT application to educational funding and the binding nature of higher tribunal rulings.

City of Portsmouth College v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1015 (TC)

This podcast outlines a tax dispute between William Andrew Tinkler and HMRC concerning income tax related to horse breeding and racing activities between 2010 and 2017. HMRC issued closure notices asserting that Mr. Tinkler's trade losses were overstated, largely because they did not consider horse racing a legitimate trade activity for tax purposes. The core of the appeal before the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) centers on whether the Tribunal has the jurisdiction to consider certain additional arguments raised by HMRC in its Statement of Case, specifically the Section 66 Issue regarding commerciality of the trade and the GAAP Issue concerning accounting standards for stock valuation. The Tribunal's decision addresses the scope of the closure notices and which issues can proceed to the substantive hearing, referencing case law such as Tower MCashback, Fidex, and Investec to determine the breadth of the appeal. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that HMRC can generally pursue these additional arguments, except for the Section 66 Issue in the 2013-14 tax year, and granted Mr. Tinkler permission to amend his grounds of appeal.

William Andrew Tinkler v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1016 (TC)

This podcast details the dismissal of an appeal by Moses Mukuna against HMRC regarding income tax liabilities and a penalty for inaccurate tax returns. The appellant, a bus driver, claimed various expenses for protective equipment, accommodation, and accident-related items, asserting that receipts were unavailable due to rodent damage in his loft. HMRC disputed these claims, issuing discovery assessments and closure notices for underpaid income tax and a penalty for deliberate overclaims, arguing that his employer confirmed no such expenses were required or reimbursed. The tribunal ultimately found that HMRC's assessments were valid and that the appellant failed to prove he was overcharged, concluding that his behavior in claiming the expenses was deliberate, especially given the inconsistencies in his reported figures and the implausibility of some claims.

Moses Mukuna v HMRC[2025] UKFTT 1020 (TC)

This podcast discusses a First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber appeal case, Deos Group.Co.Uk Limited v The Commissioners For HMRC, concerning a VAT input tax disallowance and an associated penalty. The core issue revolves around whether Deos, a business primarily involved in selling office equipment, knew or should have known that its purchases of wholesale consumer electronic goods were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion, a principle established by the Kittel and Mobilx judgments. The tribunal ultimately allowed Deos's appeals, concluding that the company neither knew nor should have known of the fraudulent connection, despite HMRC's arguments regarding suspicious market activity and the inadequacy of Deos's due diligence. The decision also briefly touches upon procedural arguments regarding the scope of evidence and allegations.

Deos Group.Co.Uk Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1018 (TC)

This podcast discusses the First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber addresses a case where Lexgreen Services Limited appealed against HMRC regarding Inheritance Tax (IHT) liability. The central issue revolved around the interpretation of "during the life of the settlor" in Section 201(1)(d) of the Inheritance Tax Act 1984, specifically whether this clause applies to corporate settlors like Lexgreen. Lexgreen argued that a company does not have a "life" in the ordinary sense, therefore it cannot be liable under this section. However, the Tribunal ultimately dismissed the appeal, finding that a company's "life" for the purpose of the statute refers to its period of existence or incorporation, making corporate settlors liable for the tax if they were an active company at the time of the transfer.

Lexgreen Services Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1019 (TC)

Whether it’s performance or policy, there’s rarely an episode of The Tax Track that doesn’t mention HMRC. In this special episode we talk to one of the senior leaders at HMRC, Jonathan Athow, Director General for Customer Strategy and Tax Design.

The government’s stated priorities for HMRC are to modernise and reform the tax system, improve customer service and close the tax gap; Athow explains how HMRC intends to deliver on those priorities, and crucially, what this means for ICAEW members.

The inside track from HMRC

ICAEW is a professional membership organisation that provides insight and leadership to the global accountancy and finance profession.

New tracks tagged #HMRC