This podcast discusses the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision in the case of Gentiana Zefi v HMRC, concerning Ms. Zefi's appeal against High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) assessments and associated penalties. The core issues revolve around whether Ms. Zefi adequately notified HMRC of her liability to the HICBC, the validity of discovery assessments made by HMRC, and the timeliness of penalties issued for alleged failure to notify. The tribunal specifically examined whether a telephone call to the Child Benefit Office constituted valid notice to an "officer of the board" and if such notice needed to be in writing or fall within a strict notification period. The case also addresses the impact of the Wilkes case and subsequent retrospective amendments to Section 29 Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA) on HMRC's ability to make discovery assessments. Ultimately, the tribunal ruled that Ms. Zefi did provide valid notice for two tax years, rendering those penalties and some assessments invalid due to being out of time, while upholding one assessment.

Gentiana Zafi v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1072 (TC)

This podcast discusses the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision in the case of UAB Migoresta v HMRC, concerning an excise duty assessment of £235,936. The appeal arose from the seizure of 760,220 cigarettes found in Migoresta's vehicle at Dover Docks. The tribunal determined that Migoresta, as the employer of the driver and owner of the vehicle, was "holding" the cigarettes, making them liable for the duty. Despite Migoresta's arguments regarding procedural missteps, unclear communication, and financial hardship, the tribunal upheld the assessment, concluding that proportionality does not apply to the quantum of excise duty itself. The appeal was dismissed, affirming the lawfulness of the assessment.

Uab Migoresta v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1062 (TC)

This podcast details the First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision in the case of Ian Smicle-Thompson against HMRC. The primary issue revolves around Mr. Smicle-Thompson's application to make a late appeal against HMRC's discovery assessments for High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) from tax years 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The Tribunal, following the "Martland" three-stage process, considered the significant delay in appealing, the reasons provided for the delay (primarily his awareness of the "Wilkes" case regarding HICBC assessment validity), and the overall circumstances, including the retrospective legislation in Section 97 of the Finance Act 2022. Ultimately, the Tribunal refused the late appeal application, concluding that the delay was substantial, the reasons lacked merit, and the underlying appeal grounds were weak, especially since his original appeal did not raise the specific "Wilkes" legal issue by the stipulated deadline.

Ian Smicle-Thompson v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1063 (TC)

This podcast outlines the First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber hearing for the case of Sean McMahon v HMRC, which centers on an appeal against discovery assessments for additional income tax. The core issue involves HMRC re-categorizing McMahon's contractor loan scheme payments as taxable employment income for the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 tax years. McMahon applied to bar HMRC from further participation, arguing that HMRC's delays in investigation made a fair trial impossible and that the assessments were defective. The tribunal ultimately rejected the barring application, finding that HMRC had a realistic prospect of success in establishing the validity of the discovery assessments, but directed McMahon to formally amend his appeal to include the "fair trial" issue if he wishes it to be considered.

Sean McMahon v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1064 (TC)

This podcast discusses an appeal brought by CFL Fuels Ltd against HMRC's decision not to return forfeited fuel and a vehicle. HMRC seized a tanker containing approximately 12,000 litres of fuel, asserting that initial tests indicated irregularities. CFL Fuels Ltd argued the fuel was duty-paid UK-purchased fuel that suffered from "innocent contamination" and that the seizure notice was unclear about the specific breach. The tribunal's role was not to re-evaluate the forfeiture itself, as CFL did not challenge it in the magistrates' court, but rather to determine if HMRC's decision to deny restoration was unreasonable. The court ultimately found that HMRC's review was based on a flawed assumption regarding the conclusive presence of laundered fuel and ordered a further review of the decision. The new review requires HMRC to clarify their position on the fuel's condition and properly consider CFL's "innocent contamination" narrative, including any new evidence on financial hardship.

CFL Fuels Ltd v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1068 (TC)

This podcast outlines a First-tier Tribunal Tax Chamber decision regarding an appeal by United Wholesale Grocers Limited (UWG) against excise duty assessments from HMRC. The core of the appeal concerns UWG's argument that it was not the initial holder of goods on which duty was unpaid, thus not liable. The tribunal's decision focuses on UWG's application for disclosure from HMRC concerning supply chains and related matters, which was ultimately granted. The document examines relevant legal precedents concerning excise duty liability, burden of proof, and particularly, disclosure rules within the tax tribunal system, drawing comparisons to Civil Procedure Rules (CPR) and various Court of Appeal judgments. Ultimately, the tribunal directed HMRC to conduct a comprehensive search and disclose documents that either negatively impact HMRC's case or support UWG's, emphasizing the broad scope needed to identify earlier duty points.

United Wholesale Grocers Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1066 (TC)

This podcast discusses the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber appeal, MBP Europe Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1069 (TC), concerning a late payment penalty for VAT. The core of the appeal revolves around whether MBP Europe Limited (the Appellant) had a reasonable excuse for the late payment, specifically due to an alleged lack of notification regarding their inclusion in the "Payments on Account regime" and the subsequent cancellation of their Direct Debit. While HMRC (the Respondent) claimed to have sent notification, the Tribunal ultimately allowed the appeal, finding that the Appellant had a reasonable excuse because they did not receive the crucial notification and acted promptly upon discovering the missed payment.

MBP Europe Limited v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1069 (TC)

This podcast discusses the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber outlining Remiglio Di Lellio's unsuccessful application for permission to make late appeals against various tax assessments and penalties issued by HMRC between 2018 and 2019. The tribunal considered the length of the delay, the reasons provided for it, and all circumstances of the case, following the three-stage test established in Martland v HMRC and Medpro v HMRC jurisprudence. A key issue was Mr. Di Lellio's reliance on his accountant, Mr. Cooke, who repeatedly failed to file appeals despite HMRC's clear instructions and warnings. Ultimately, the tribunal refused the application, finding the delays were significant, Mr. Di Lellio's reliance on his advisor was unreasonable given direct communications from HMRC, and the merits of his underlying tax case were weak, outweighing any prejudice he might face. The decision also noted an outstanding issue regarding Personal Liability Notices (PLNs) that remained active despite the underlying penalties being cancelled.

Remiglio di Lellio v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1071 (TC)

This podcast details the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber's decision to strike out an appeal by Majestic Global FZ-LLC against HMRC. The core issue revolves around Majestic Global's lack of standing to appeal conditions imposed by HMRC on CMBC Supply Ltd's approvals and registrations for excise duty purposes. HMRC's conditions prevented CMBC from selling or dispatching goods to Majestic due to a "significant risk of outward diversion fraud" within Majestic's supply chain. Despite Majestic's arguments that the decisions were "about" them and directly impacted their trade, the Tribunal found that standing under relevant legislation (s 16(2A) of the Finance Act 1994) is limited to the party whose approval or registration is directly subjected to HMRC's statutory powers, not merely those consequentially affected. Therefore, the tribunal lacked jurisdiction to hear Majestic's appeal.

Majestic Global FZ-LLC v HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1061 (TC)

HMRC has published guidance setting out what it expects of taxpayers who are considering applying novel or improbable interpretations of the law, or are uncertain how the law applies when submitting a tax return or similar document.

This audio file was produced by AI and is based on the Insights article: https://www.icaew.com/insights/tax-news/2025/sep-2025/taxpayers-encouraged-to-ensure-returns-are-correct-and-complete

Taxpayers encouraged to ensure returns are correct and complete

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

New tracks tagged #hmrc