Market leading insight for tax experts
View online issue

HMRC v N Rogers and another

In HMRC v N Rogers and another [2019] UKUT 406 (30 December 2019) the UT found that a notice issued under TMA 1970 s 8 does not need to identify an HMRC officer responsible for the notice. 

HMRC appealed two decisions of the FTT which concerned penalties for late filing of self-assessment returns. 

HMRC’s first ground of appeal concerned the scope of the FTT’s jurisdiction. In Goldsmith [2019] UKUT 325 the UT had concluded that the FTT did have jurisdiction to consider an alleged defect of a notice to file issued under TMA 1970 s 8 when deciding whether a penalty for non-compliance was valid. HMRC contended that the Goldsmith decision had been wrongly decided but the UT disagreed with this ground of appeal.

HMRC also challenged the FTT’s conclusion that for a notice to be given ‘by an officer of the Board’ a named officer either 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:

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.
EDITOR'S PICKstar
Top