Hannah v Revenue and Customs (Case management - applications by the parties - whether Appellant had permission to include two new grounds - scope of Tribunal's jurisdiction under TMA s.50 - whether the transfer of assets abroad legislation breached Art 56 TFEU - whether evidence on Guernsey law should be directed) [2024] UKFTT 1116 (TC) (12 December 2024)

Hannah v Revenue and Customs (Case management - applications by the parties - whether Appellant had permission to include two new grounds - scope of Tribunal's jurisdiction under TMA s.50 - whether the transfer of assets abroad legislation breached Art 56 TFEU - whether evidence on Guernsey law should be directed) [2024] UKFTT 1116 (TC) (12 December 2024)

Permission to amend to include the permanent establishment ground was refused because it lacked sufficient conviction, was not supported by evidence, would unfairly expand the proceedings, and was procedurally unfair to HMRC. Permission to amend to include the EU law ground (Art 63 TFEU) was granted as it was properly particularised, had a degree of conviction, and did not open a wholly new area. Directions were given for further particulars, expert valuation evidence, and revised statements of case. No expert evidence on Guernsey law was permitted as unnecessary. The time limit for applying for permission to appeal was shortened to 28 days.

Citation
[2024] UKFTT 1116
Parties
Appellant: David Warren Hannah; Respondents: The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
12 December 2024
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Interlocutory Decision on Case Management Applications
Outcome
Interlocutory applications determined; permission to amend grounds of appeal partially granted; directions issued.
Legal Topics
Transfer of Assets Abroad, Discovery Assessments, Freedom of Movement of Capital (tfeu Art 63), Freedom of Establishment (tfeu Art 49), Case Management, Amendment of Grounds of Appeal, Expert Evidence, Penalty Assessments
Tax Law European Union Law Civil Procedure Transfer of Assets Abroad Discovery Assessments Freedom of Movement of Capital (tfeu Art 63) Freedom of Establishment (tfeu Art 49) Case Management +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Warren Hannah

Appellant

The Commissioners for His Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal, Tax Chamber) / Interlocutory Decision on Case Management Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant should have permission to amend grounds of appeal to include new grounds (permanent establishment and EU law)
  2. 2 Scope of Tribunal's jurisdiction under TMA s 50
  3. 3 Whether the transfer of assets abroad legislation breaches Art 63 TFEU

Ratio Decidendi

Permission to amend to include the permanent establishment ground was refused because it lacked sufficient conviction, was not supported by evidence, would unfairly expand the proceedings, and was procedurally unfair to HMRC. Permission to amend to include the EU law ground (Art 63 TFEU) was granted as it was properly particularised, had a degree of conviction, and did not open a wholly new area. Directions were given for further particulars, expert valuation evidence, and revised statements of case. No expert evidence on Guernsey law was permitted as unnecessary. The time limit for applying for permission to appeal was shortened to 28 days.

Court Disposition

Interlocutory applications determined; permission to amend grounds of appeal partially granted; directions issued.

Orders

  • Permission to amend grounds of appeal to include the EU law ground (Art 63 TFEU) granted.
  • Permission to amend grounds of appeal to include the permanent establishment ground refused.