Disputes with HMRC can progress through several stages, from initial enquiries to tribunal hearings and, in some cases, appeals to higher courts. Each stage has a different focus, and understanding that structure is important when deciding how to challenge HMRC’s position.
The Court of Appeal decision in M R Currell Ltd v HMRC provides a useful reminder of how tax appeals are approached at a higher level. In particular, it highlights the limited scope of appeals and the importance of identifying legal errors rather than simply disagreeing with the outcome.
For businesses involved in tax disputes, the case underlines the need for a clear and structured approach to appeals.
What was the dispute about in M R Currell Ltd v HMRC
The case involved a dispute between a company and HMRC over tax liability. The taxpayer challenged HMRC’s position and the matter progressed through the tribunal system before reaching the Court of Appeal.
By the time the case reached this stage, the focus had shifted away from the detailed facts and towards the legal principles applied in earlier decisions.
The court was asked to consider whether the law had been correctly interpreted and applied.
How tax appeals reach the Court of Appeal
Tax disputes are usually first heard by the First-tier tax Tribunal. If a party believes that the tribunal has made an error of law, an appeal can be made to the Upper Tribunal.
Further appeals may be brought to the Court of Appeal, but only on points of law. This means that not every disagreement can be pursued at this level.
The structure is designed to ensure that legal issues are reviewed carefully while preventing repeated re-litigation of factual matters.
What the court looks at in a tax appeal
At the Court of Appeal stage, the focus is on whether the law has been applied correctly.
The court will examine the reasoning of the lower tribunal and consider whether there has been a legal error. This may involve interpretation of legislation or assessment of how legal principles have been used.
The court will not normally revisit detailed factual findings unless there is a clear issue with how those findings were reached.
Why the distinction between fact and law matters
A key point arising from the case is the distinction between fact and law.
- Arguments based on factual disagreement are unlikely to succeed at the appeal stage.
- By contrast, arguments that identify a genuine legal issue are more likely to be considered.
This distinction is important when deciding whether to pursue an appeal. A well-framed legal argument can be critical to success, whereas a case based on factual disagreement alone may not progress.
What this means for businesses challenging HMRC
For businesses, the case highlights the importance of preparing for disputes at an early stage.
The way a case is presented in the initial tribunal can affect the ability to appeal later. Clear identification of legal issues and careful handling of evidence are essential.
When considering an appeal, it is important to assess whether there is a genuine point of law. Without that, the prospects of success are limited.
Taking advice at the right time can help ensure that the correct arguments are advanced and that the dispute is managed effectively.
Andy Lynch and and the team at FWJ dealt with a HMRC compliance check. Cannot recommend them enough, approachable, Knowledgeable, professional and above all else got the desired result. Will not hesitate in dealing with them again if required.
A client we helped with an HMRC compliance check
