Ronnie Hanan v The Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Judge Richards,Judge Brannan |
| Neutral Citation | [2020] UKUT 0194 (TCC) |
| Court | Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) |
| Subject Matter | Tax,22 June 2020 |
| Date | 22 June 2020 |
| Published date | 23 June 2020 |
1
[2020] UKUT 0194 (TCC)
Appeal number: UT/2019/0053
INCOME TAX – whether subsequent grant of permission to notify a
late appeal against an information notice invalids a penalty imposed
for non-compliance with that information notice – no – appeal
dismissed
UPPER TRIBUNAL
(TAX AND CHANCERY CHAMBER)
RONNIE HANAN
Appellant
-and-
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
Respondents
Sitting in public by way of telephone hearing treated as taking place in London on
8 June 2020
The Appellant in person with assistance at the hearing from Albert Fox
Emma Pearce, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor for HM Revenue
& Customs for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2020
TRIBUNAL
JUDGE JONATHAN RICHARDS
JUDGE GUY BRANNAN
2
DECISION
1. This appeal involves points of detail arising out of the legislation set out in
Schedule 36 of Finance Act 2008 (“Schedule 36”) that permits HMRC to issue
information notices requiring taxpayers to provide them with specified information and
documents and to charge penalties where a taxpayer fails to comply with an information
notice. Very broadly, Mr Hanan received an information notice, appealed to HMRC
against it and requested, and obtained, a review of HMRC’s decision. He did not notify
his appeal to the First-tier Tribunal (the “FTT”) within applicable time limits and, in
December 2016, HMRC imposed a penalty in respect of his failure to comply with the
information notice. Mr Hanan appealed against the penalty and also obtained
permission from the FTT to notify his appeal against the information notice late. The
FTT released its decision on both the information notice and penalty notice appeals in
December 2018 and, in the information notice appeal, the FTT approved the notice with
some minor amendments. The question raised by these proceedings is whether HMRC
were entitled to rely on the penalty assessment imposed in December 2016 in
circumstances where, as events transpired, it was only in December 2018 that the FTT
adjudicated on the validity of the information notice.
2. Prior to the hearing, we asked the parties for their views on the appropriate format
for the hearing. HMRC submitted that the hearing should take place “remotely”, either
by telephone or video-conference. Mr Hanan argued that the hearing should be
postponed until such time as it was practicable for it to take the form of a “face to face”
hearing at which all parties were physically present at the same location. In Directions
released on 18 May 2020 we decided that the hearing would take the form of a fully
remote audio hearing at which all parties participate from separate locations by
telephone and we gave reasons for that decision. We will not repeat those reasons in
this decision.
The statutory scheme as applicable to the information notices that Mr Hanan
received
3. To put the issue in context, we start with a summary of the applicable statutory
scheme as applicable to the information notice that Mr Hanan received. References in
square brackets are to paragraphs of the decision (the “Decision”) that is under appeal,
namely Ronnie Hanan v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 2 (TCC).
4. Paragraph 1 of Schedule 36 permits HMRC to issue information notices requiring
taxpayers to provide documents or information within such reasonable period as is
specified in the notice (paragraph 7 of Schedule 36). On 12 November 2015, HMRC
sent Mr Hanan such an information notice requiring him to provide documents and
information relating to 37 points set out in a schedule ([4]). HMRC initially required
Mr Hanan to provide the documents and information by 14 December 2015, but then
agreed to extend that deadline to 19 February 2016.
5. Since HMRC had not obtained advance approval of the information from the FTT,
and since the information notice did not seek only “statutory records”, paragraph 29 of
Schedule 36 gave Mr Hanan a right of appeal against the information notice. That right
To continue reading
Request your trial