Brown v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 984 (TC) (24 October 2014)

Brown v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 984 (TC) (24 October 2014)

There was no evidence that HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings. Although the Tribunal found in favour of the Appellant in the substantive appeal, this does not entitle the Appellant to costs. HMRC were entitled to argue their case based on their interpretation of the facts and law, and their conduct did not meet the threshold of unreasonableness required for a costs order under Rule 10.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 984 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Gordon Brown; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 October 2014
Procedural Posture
Costs Application Following Substantive Tax Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision on Costs
Outcome
Application for costs refused
Legal Topics
Costs Orders, Reasonable Excuse for Late Payment, Time to Pay Arrangements, Unreasonable Conduct in Proceedings
Tax Law Tribunal Procedure Costs Orders Reasonable Excuse for Late Payment Time to Pay Arrangements Unreasonable Conduct in Proceedings

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 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gordon Brown

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Costs Application Following Substantive Tax Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision on Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant is entitled to an order for costs against HMRC

Ratio Decidendi

There was no evidence that HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings. Although the Tribunal found in favour of the Appellant in the substantive appeal, this does not entitle the Appellant to costs. HMRC were entitled to argue their case based on their interpretation of the facts and law, and their conduct did not meet the threshold of unreasonableness required for a costs order under Rule 10.

Court Disposition

Application for costs refused

Orders

  • The Appellant's application for costs is dismissed.