Judgment summary
This decision concerns an application by HMRC to strike out an appeal brought by Wimmer Family Office Ltd under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) 2009, on the ground that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction (1).
HMRC argued that the Appellant had not given written notice of appeal to HMRC as required by s. 49D of the Taxes Management Act 1970, but had instead notified the appeal directly to the Tribunal (2).
The Tribunal Judge concluded that there was no evidence that the Appellant had notified the relevant HMRC officer prior to lodging the appeal with the Tribunal, and struck out the appeal under Rule 8(2)(a) (41, 50, 51).
Background
The Appellant lodged a Notice of Appeal with the Tribunal on 31 March 2025 ("the First Appeal") in relation to Closure Notices issued by HMRC on 2 June 2023 and Penalty Notices issued on 5 October 2023, for accounting periods ending 31 December 2017, 31 December 2018 and 31 December 2019 (10).
The First Appeal related to Corporation Tax liabilities totalling £52,402.98 and penalties totalling £28,428.62 (11).
A letter dated 15 June 2023, sent by Officer Newbury of the HMRC Fraud Investigation Service, informed the Appellant that enquiries were being closed and that formal closure notices would follow under separate cover (13, 14). The Tribunal found that Officer Newbury was the "relevant officer" for the purposes of s. 31A TMA 1970 (15).
The Appellant relied on an email sent to the "HMRC PDDD Mailbox" and the "ISBC Mailbox" on or about 11 September 2024, contesting the disallowance of certain expenses (16). HMRC accepted this email had been sent to an HMRC mailbox and that, had it been sent to the appropriate officer, it would have constituted a valid appeal, but maintained that it had not been sent to the relevant officer (17).
The Notice of Appeal to the Tribunal was lodged on behalf of the Appellant by Fieldfisher LLP, who indicated on the T240 form that no appeal had been made to HMRC (18). There was no evidence the September 2024 email, or any other appeal, had been sent to the relevant officer prior to the appeal being lodged with the Tribunal (19, 20).
The First Appeal was notified to HMRC on 11 June 2025, including an application for permission to bring a late appeal (21). On 30 July 2025, Fieldfisher acknowledged the late appeal had been submitted directly to the Tribunal in error (22). HMRC lodged a strike out application on 31 July 2025 (23) and separately invited the Appellant to make a late appeal to HMRC (24).
A late appeal application was made by Fieldfisher on 4 August 2025 (25), which HMRC refused on 20 August 2025 (26). Fieldfisher ceased acting for the Appellant on 9 September 2025 (27), and the Appellant lodged a new, separate appeal ("the Second Appeal") on 19 September 2025, which was not the subject of this decision (28).
Core dispute
The sole issue before the Tribunal was whether the First Appeal (reference TC/2025/02113) should be struck out for want of jurisdiction (32).
HMRC's original position was that no notice of appeal had been given to HMRC at all prior to the Tribunal appeal (35). During the hearing, HMRC revised its position, accepting that an appeal had been notified to HMRC in respect of the 2023 Closure Notices, but maintaining that it had not been given to the relevant officer as required by s. 31A TMA 1970 (36, 40).
The Appellant contended that sustained efforts had been made since 2023/2024 to engage with HMRC, including telephone contact and instructions to its accountant, but accepted it could not point to any evidence of a written appeal made to the relevant officer before the 31 March 2025 Tribunal appeal was lodged (38, 39).
Court findings
The Tribunal found there was no evidence that the Appellant had notified the relevant HMRC officer prior to lodging the First Appeal with the Tribunal, and no evidence that notice of appeal had been given to, or received by, the officer who issued the decision, or otherwise brought to that officer's attention (41).
Applying s. 31A and s. 49D TMA 1970, the Tribunal held that s. 31A cannot be satisfied where an appeal is notified directly to the Tribunal instead of the relevant HMRC officer (44). Relying on FlashFilm Transport Ltd v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 4 (TC), the Tribunal held that HMRC's care and management powers do not allow the statutory requirement of first appealing to HMRC to be waived, so the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to decide a direct tax appeal unless it has first been made to HMRC (43).
The Tribunal also relied on Vekaria v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 288 (TC), agreeing that an appeal must be sent to the relevant officer of the board, and that it is not sufficient for a communication to be sent to HMRC generally, such as by email to an undirected HMRC mailbox (45, 46).
The Tribunal concluded that s. 49D TMA 1970 is engaged only where notice of appeal has already been given to HMRC in accordance with s. 31A, that is, to the relevant officer, and that the right to notify an appeal to the Tribunal arises only once that step has been taken (47, 48, 49).
Outcome
The Tribunal held that the Appellant did not give written notice of appeal to the relevant HMRC officer, as required by sections 31A and 49D(1) TMA 1970, prior to notifying the Tribunal (50).
As a result, the First Appeal was not a valid appeal to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to determine it (50).
The appeal was struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) 2009 (51). The parties were notified of the right to apply for permission to appeal under Rule 39, with any application to be received within 56 days of the decision being sent (52).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear the appeal under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Rules.
- Whether notice of appeal had been given in writing to the 'relevant officer' of HMRC as required by section 31A TMA 1970.
- Whether an email sent to a general HMRC mailbox could satisfy the requirement to notify the relevant officer.
- Whether section 49D TMA 1970 permitted notification of an appeal to the Tribunal in the absence of a prior valid appeal to HMRC.
- Whether HMRC's care and management powers could waive or dispense with the statutory requirement to appeal first to HMRC.