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.
VAT � penalty - retrospective deregistration - no - whether lack of HMRC review affects appeal - no - late appeal - long period of delay - reasonable excuse - no - appeal dismissed
For the Respondents: �� Ben Williams, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs� Solicitor�s Office
             The Notice of Appeal, dated 18 November 2015, submitted by the appellant�s then accountants, appealed a penalty of �8,590 and ��45,559 of VAT charged�.
             With the consent of the parties, the hearing was conducted by video link using the Tribunal�s video hearing system.� A face-to-face hearing was not held because of the difficulty of ensuring the safety of all participants.� The documents to which I was referred comprised a Bundle consisting of 188 pages.� I also had an Authorities Bundle extending to 70 pages.� HMRC had lodged a Skeleton Argument.
             �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.
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.