Disputes with HMRC: appeals

FORTHCOMING CHANGE: A consultation (closing on 7 July 2025) seeks views on options for simplifying, modernising and reforming HMRC’s approach to dispute resolution with the aim of raising awareness of the dispute resolution processes and improving access to (and take-up of) alternative dispute resolution (ADR) and statutory review processes. The consultation also proposes aligning and simplifying the approach for appeals processes to combine the benefits of the different approaches currently used for direct and indirect tax disputes. For more information, see News Analysis articles: Tax update spring 2025—Tax analysis—Taxes management and dispute resolution and Tax update spring 2025—Improving HMRC’s approach to dispute resolution.

Most HMRC decisions are able to be appealed by the taxpayer.

Once a taxpayer has received an appealable decision, the clock has already started to run for:

  1. requesting an HMRC review of that decision, and

  2. appealing it to the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT)

Below is an overview of the appeals procedure and the matters to be considered by a taxpayer:

  1. before launching an appeal, and

  2. throughout the appeal process

The procedure differs if the

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

Powered by Lexis+®
Latest Tax News

Upper Tribunal denies EIS relief as trade not commenced (Putney Power and Piston Heating v HMRC)

Tax analysis: The Upper Tribunal (UT) has held that the First-tier Tax Tribunal (the FTT) made a material error of law in its approach to determining when a trade has ‘begun to be carried on’ by a company for the purposes of qualifying for Enterprise Investment Scheme (EIS) relief under section 179(2)(b) of the Income Tax Act 2007 (ITA 2007). The FTT had identified a set of principles by reference to factors which were of relevance in previous cases and applied those ‘legal’ principles to determine that neither Putney Power Limited (‘Putney’) nor Piston Hearing Services Ltd (‘Piston’) had begun to carry on a trade by the relevant date of 4 April 2018. The UT set aside the FTT’s decision on the basis that the FTT had sought to apply a principles-based test which did not exist as a matter of law. The proper approach requires a multi-factorial evaluation of all of the circumstances in the case at hand. The UT re-made the decision but ultimately reached the same conclusion as the FTT, dismissing the appeals of both Putney and Piston and holding that neither company had commenced trading by the relevant date. The decision is significant because it clarifies that there is no strict legal test for when a trade commences: the question remains highly fact sensitive and will be determined by reference to the particular facts and circumstances of each case. Written by Kate Ison (partner at Macfarlanes LLP) and Victoria Braid (associate at macfarlanes LLP).

View Tax by content type :

Popular documents