In Westminster Trading and others v HMRC [2017] UKUT 23 (25 January 2017) the UT found that the FTT had been entitled to refuse an adjournment even though this meant that the hearing would take place without the appellant’s director and main witness.
The issue was whether the FTT had been right to refuse an application for adjournment. The substantive appeals related to HMRC’s denial of input tax claims on the ground that the relevant transactions were connected with MTIC fraud.
The UT noted that in deciding whether to grant the adjournment the FTT had to have regard to the overriding objective set out in the FTT Rules 2009 r 2; ‘to deal with cases fairly and justly’. The UT also cited Goldman Sachs v HMRC [2009] UKUT 90 as authority for the proposition that it would need to be satisfied that the FTT’s...
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:
In Westminster Trading and others v HMRC [2017] UKUT 23 (25 January 2017) the UT found that the FTT had been entitled to refuse an adjournment even though this meant that the hearing would take place without the appellant’s director and main witness.
The issue was whether the FTT had been right to refuse an application for adjournment. The substantive appeals related to HMRC’s denial of input tax claims on the ground that the relevant transactions were connected with MTIC fraud.
The UT noted that in deciding whether to grant the adjournment the FTT had to have regard to the overriding objective set out in the FTT Rules 2009 r 2; ‘to deal with cases fairly and justly’. The UT also cited Goldman Sachs v HMRC [2009] UKUT 90 as authority for the proposition that it would need to be satisfied that the FTT’s...
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:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")