Daniel Pittack v HMRC

Cathya Djanogly

In Daniel Pittack v HMRC (TC03793 – 9 July 2014) the FTT found that a hearing could proceed in the absence of the taxpayer and that an information notice was too wide.

Mr Pittack had appealed against an information notice and the penalties imposed for non-compliance with the notice. He had requested the postponement of the hearing on numerous occasions on the ground of ill-health as he had a heart condition.

The hearing was finally listed for 9 April 2014 – it had first been listed on 11 June 2012. At 16.39 pm on the day before the hearing Mr Pittack informed the tribunal that he would not attend the hearing because of an additional illness.

Under the Tribunal (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules SI 2009/273 r 33 the FTT was allowed to proceed in the absence of Mr Pittack only if he had...

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:

Subscribe Now...

Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.

Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this article in full.

Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.

In Daniel Pittack v HMRC (TC03793 – 9 July 2014) the FTT found that a hearing could proceed in the absence of the taxpayer and that an information notice was too wide.

Under the Tribunal (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules SI 2009/273 r 33 the FTT was allowed to proceed in the absence of Mr Pittack only if he had...

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: