.png)
.png)
A second chance?
Key points
- Generally the facts of a case should be determined at the first court hearing.
- An exception is provided by the case of Edwards v Bairstow.
- The extent of the Upper Tribunal’s fact-finding jurisdiction under the Tribunals Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 s 12.
- The Supreme Court in HMRC v Pendragon thought that the Upper Tribunal had a wider jurisdiction.
- In Praesto and FortySeven the Court of Appeal held that the Upper Tribunal had gone beyond its jurisdiction.
- These two cases emphasise that an appeal may not provide an opportunity to reopen the facts as found by the lower tribunal.
In two recent VAT cases the Court of Appeal has highlighted and emphasised the limits of the Upper Tribunal’s jurisdiction when it comes to determining the facts in a dispute between a taxpayer and HMRC. The cases were Praesto Consulting UK Ltd v HMRC [2019] EWCA Civ 353 (Praesto) and CRC v FortySeven Park Street Ltd [2019] EWCA Civ...
Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.
