Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
For the Respondents: �� Mr Joshua Gyasi, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs� Solicitor�s Office
             With the consent of the parties, the form of the hearing was V (video) via Tribunal video hearing system.� A face-to-face hearing was not held because a remote hearing was appropriate.� The documents to which we were referred are a bundle of 321 pages.
              Prior notice of the hearing had been published on the gov.uk website, with information about how representatives of the media or members of the public could apply to join the hearing remotely in order to observe the proceedings.� As such, the hearing was held in public.
             This case is an appeal against penalties imposed upon White Breeze Limited (� WBL �) for late submission of its corporation tax returns for the periods ended 31 July 2013, 2014 and 2015.
             Following the receipt of a notice from HMRC to deliver a return, a company must, under paragraph 3 of Schedule 18 to Finance Act 1998 (� Sch 18 �), submit a company tax return no later than the filing date.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.