Archer v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2016] UKFTT 141 (TC) (29 February 2016)

Archer v Revenue and Customs (PROCEDURE : Other) [2016] UKFTT 141 (TC) (29 February 2016)

HMRC's actions after the closure application was made were not unreasonable; the delay in issuing the closure notice was explained by internal processes and staff leave, and there was no evidence of vexatious or tactical delay. Previous delays by HMRC prior to the application could not, by themselves, render their conduct during proceedings unreasonable for the purposes of Rule 10(1)(b).

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 141
Parties
Appellant: Mr William Archer; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
29 February 2016
Procedural Posture
Costs Application in Tax Proceedings / Decision on Oral Application for Costs Under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (first Tier Tribunal)(tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Outcome
Application for costs denied
Legal Topics
Costs Applications, Unreasonable Conduct, Closure Notice, Accelerated Payment Notice (apn), Tribunal Procedure
Tax Law Civil Procedure Costs Applications Unreasonable Conduct Closure Notice Accelerated Payment Notice (apn) Tribunal Procedure

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr William Archer

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Costs Application in Tax Proceedings / Decision on Oral Application for Costs Under Rule 10(1)(b) of the Tribunal Procedure (first Tier Tribunal)(tax Chamber) Rules 2009

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC acted unreasonably in defending or conducting the proceedings for the purposes of Rule 10(1)(b) of the Tribunal Rules
  2. 2 Whether HMRC's delay in issuing a closure notice after indicating no opposition amounted to unreasonable behaviour justifying a costs order

Ratio Decidendi

HMRC's actions after the closure application was made were not unreasonable; the delay in issuing the closure notice was explained by internal processes and staff leave, and there was no evidence of vexatious or tactical delay. Previous delays by HMRC prior to the application could not, by themselves, render their conduct during proceedings unreasonable for the purposes of Rule 10(1)(b).

Court Disposition

Application for costs denied