Daniel v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 916 (TC) (25 September 2014)

Daniel v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 916 (TC) (25 September 2014)

Although the tribunal failed to consider the application to admit new evidence (the 1994 documents), constituting a procedural irregularity, this did not result in injustice affecting the outcome because the documents would not have altered the findings on residence or negligence. The tribunal’s consideration of the possible negligence of Arthur Andersen was not a procedural irregularity but a judicial decision, and in any event, the finding of negligence against Mr Daniel alone was sufficient to uphold the decision. Therefore, it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the decision in whole or in part.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 916 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Paul Daniel; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
25 September 2014
Procedural Posture
Application to Set Aside Tribunal Decision / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) – Application Under Rule 38 to Set Aside Previous Decision
Outcome
Application to set aside the decision refused
Legal Topics
Tribunal Procedure, Procedural Irregularity, Tax Residence, Discovery Assessment, Negligence in Tax Returns
Tax Law Administrative Law Tribunal Procedure Procedural Irregularity Tax Residence Discovery Assessment Negligence in Tax Returns

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Daniel

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Application to Set Aside Tribunal Decision / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) – Application Under Rule 38 to Set Aside Previous Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether failure to determine an application to admit new evidence constituted a procedural irregularity justifying setting aside the decision
  2. 2 Whether the tribunal's determination of an issue not alleged to be part of HMRC’s case was a procedural irregularity
  3. 3 Whether it was in the interests of justice to set aside the decision or part of it

Ratio Decidendi

Although the tribunal failed to consider the application to admit new evidence (the 1994 documents), constituting a procedural irregularity, this did not result in injustice affecting the outcome because the documents would not have altered the findings on residence or negligence. The tribunal’s consideration of the possible negligence of Arthur Andersen was not a procedural irregularity but a judicial decision, and in any event, the finding of negligence against Mr Daniel alone was sufficient to uphold the decision. Therefore, it was not in the interests of justice to set aside the decision in whole or in part.

Court Disposition

Application to set aside the decision refused

Orders

  • Mr Daniel’s application to set aside the decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) is refused in whole and in part.