In the case of Moscal v HMRC [2026] UKFTT 640 (TC), the FTT has struck out the appeal because the appellant had failed to notify HMRC of the appeal against an assessment and closure notices before notifying the FTT, and thus the FTT had no jurisdiction to hear the appeal.
PROCEDURE – application for strike out – jurisdiction – requirement to notify HMRC
The FTT concluded that:
“Section 31A TMA is headed “Appeals: notice of appeal” and sets out the requirements for making an appeal. In relation to appeals made “under section 31” it provides that notice of an appeal under s31 must be given in writing, within 30 days after the issue of the closure notice or making of the assessment and to the relevant officer of the board. In my view, for the reasons set out below, s31A TMA cannot be met by notifying an appeal to the Tribunal without first having notified HMRC.
Section 49D TMA is expressly engaged only where notice of appeal has already been given to HMRC. Its provisions are therefore predicated on an appeal having first been notified to HMRC in accordance with s31A.
Giving the words of the statute their ordinary meaning, the procedural options set out in s49D(2) TMA— including the right to notify an appeal to the Tribunal — arise only once an appeal has been notified to HMRC. Those options are not available where no such notice has been given.
I therefore agree with the comments of Judge Redston in FlashFilm and find that the legislation provides that an appeal must be made to HMRC before an appeal can be notified to the Tribunal.
The Appellant did not notify his appeal in writing to HMRC as required by s 49D(1) TMA prior to notifying the Tribunal and in those circumstances the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and HMRC’s application must be allowed. …
… , the application is GRANTED and the appeal is STRUCK OUT under Rule 8(2)(a) of the FTT Rules.”
As an alternative application, HMRC had argued that the appeal should be struck out as there was no reasonable prospect of the case succeeding. For completeness, the FTT considered the application and agreed with HMRC. The FTT noted that Appellant’s principal contention was that “the inaccuracies in his returns arose from the conduct of his former agent, whom he alleges acted fraudulently.” However, the Appellant had subsequently provided amended figures to HMRC and it was these figures that were now under appeal. As such:
“Even if that allegation [the fraudulent behaviour of the agent] were accepted, it does not provide a basis on which the amounts of tax determined by HMRC could be displaced, where those amounts reflect figures which the Appellant himself accepts to be correct. … Had the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the appeal, I would have concluded, for the reasons set out above, that the Appellant’s case had no reasonable prospect of success.”
https://caselaw.nationalarchives.gov.uk/ukftt/tc/2026/640
Related content from Claritax Books
In this book, the author examines the statutory rules and addresses the practicalities of the closure notice from the taxpayer’s point of view. In particular, the text examines how to obtain a notice and how to deal with it once it has been issued (including challenging the notice when appropriate).
