The main issue in this case was “whether these appeals give rise to common or related issues and, if so, if it is appropriate to exercise the Tribunal’s discretion to specify a lead case in terms of Rule 18” (Putney Power Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 292 (TC)).
The FTT concluded that the cases were sufficiently different, so that the Rule 18 application should be refused:
“I have given the Rule 18 Application considerable thought and I accept that there are similarities in the approach taken by each of the appellants. However, I am afraid that I cannot agree with Mr Ewart that the differences in the factual matrices are simply nuanced. I am unable to identify with sufficient clarity factual issues in Putney or Cogeneration that would be determinative of all of the appeals.
Since in Putney there is the issue of liquidated damages and in Piston there was not even a site, I can see why both should proceed. I also understand why both parties accept that a decision in Putney might assist the parties in the other three appeals.”
The FTT refused the Rule 18 (lead case) application and granted the Rule 5 (staying of further appeals) application.
https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2023/TC08763.html
Related content from Claritax Books
In Tax Appeals – Law and Practice at the FTT, tax barrister Keith Gordon analyses some 500 precedents to show how the FTT rules are applied in practice, and how taxpayers may use the tribunal system for appealing against tax decisions.
