Judgment summary
The Tribunal determined HMRC's application to strike out Lewis Conman's appeal on the papers, under Rule 26 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (1). The Appellant did not respond to the strike out application despite being given the opportunity to do so.
HMRC applied to strike out the appeal under Rule 8(2)(a), on the basis the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction, and in the alternative under Rule 8(3)(c), on the basis the appeal had no reasonable prospect of success (1). HMRC's primary position was that the Appellant had not given notice of appeal to HMRC before notifying his appeal to the Tribunal, so the requirement in section 49D of the Taxes Management Act 1970 had not been satisfied (2).
The Tribunal agreed with HMRC's primary submission and found it unnecessary to determine the alternative Rule 8(3)(c) application (3, 25).
Background
HMRC wrote to LVC Global Ltd on 19 December 2023 stating that a Failure to Notify penalty under Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008, as applied by paragraph 13 Schedule 16 Finance Act 2020, would be imposed. HMRC's position was that the reference pay used in certain CJRS claims had been increased after the relevant reference date and subsequently reduced once CJRS claims ceased (7).
LVC Global Ltd entered voluntary liquidation on 11 January 2024 (8). On 5 February 2024, HMRC issued a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) to the Appellant and provided a copy to the liquidator (9). On 6 March 2024, the Appellant's agent emailed HMRC indicating acceptance of HMRC's position regarding the CJRS overclaim (10).
On 27 May 2025 and 29 May 2025 respectively, the Appellant notified two appeals to the Tribunal against the same PLN. Those appeals were subsequently consolidated under reference TC/2025/02221 (11). HMRC's application to strike out is dated 18 June 2026 (12).
In his Notices of Appeal, the Appellant explained that he believed the liquidator was dealing with HMRC's correspondence and later realised this was not the case (13). He stated that he did not dispute the underlying debt, but objected to HMRC's characterisation of the relevant conduct as deliberate and concealed, and considered it unfair that liability arising from LVC Global Limited had been assessed against him personally (14). He also referred to discussions with HMRC concerning payment arrangements and his ability to meet the liability (15).
Core dispute
The issue was whether the Appellant notified an appeal to HMRC before notifying his appeal to the Tribunal, as required by section 49D of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (20).
HMRC submitted that the appeal should be struck out because the Appellant did not notify an appeal to HMRC before notifying his appeal to the Tribunal, so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction under Rule 8(2)(a) of the FTT Rules (16, 17). In the alternative, HMRC applied for strike out under Rule 8(3)(c) on the basis there was no reasonable prospect of the Appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding (1, 19).
HMRC relied on Flash Film Transport Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 4 (TC) and Rotaru v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 80 (TC) (18).
Court findings
Section 49D TMA permits an appeal to be notified to the Tribunal only where notice of appeal has first been given to HMRC (21). In Flash Film, Judge Redston concluded that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine an appeal where that statutory requirement has not been met (22).
HMRC submitted that no appeal against the PLN was received before the appeals were notified to the Tribunal. The Appellant did not respond to the strike out application, and there was no evidence before the Tribunal that any notice of appeal was given to HMRC before the appeals were lodged with the Tribunal (23).
The Tribunal found that the requirement in section 49D had not been satisfied, so the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction to determine the appeal and was required to strike it out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the FTT Rules (24). Given this conclusion, it was unnecessary to determine HMRC's alternative application under Rule 8(3)(c) (25).
Outcome
The application was GRANTED and the appeal was STRUCK OUT under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Rules (26).
The decision contains full findings of fact and reasons. Any party dissatisfied has a right to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39 of the FTT Rules, with any application to be received not later than 56 days after the decision is sent (27).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Appellant had given notice of appeal to HMRC before notifying his appeal to the Tribunal, as required by section 49D TMA
- Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal in the absence of a prior notice of appeal to HMRC
- Whether the appeal should be struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the FTT Rules for lack of jurisdiction
- Whether, in the alternative, the appeal should be struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) for having no reasonable prospect of success (not determined)