Thomas James Niewiarowski v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 649 (TC)
Joanne Robson v The Commissioners for HMRC
29 September 2023
[2023] UKFTT 868 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Joanne Robson successfully appealed tax assessments. HMRC paused her case because of a court ruling, and this pause meant the old ruling that prevented the tax applied, cancelling the tax.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against discovery assessments for High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for tax years 2017/18 and 2019/20.
- •Assessments made under s29 Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA 1970).
- •Appellant, Joanne Robson, was not required to file self-assessment tax returns.
- •HMRC's 'educational' letters were not received by the Appellant due to an outdated address on HMRC's records.
- •Appellant's appeal was notified to HMRC before 30 June 2021.
- •HMRC's letter of 9 September 2021 stated a temporary pause of assessments and penalties pending the outcome of HMRC v Wilkes.
Legal Principles
Discovery assessments under s29 TMA 1970 for HICBC are invalid if the HICBC is not considered 'income' which ought to have been assessed to income tax.
HMRC v Wilkes [2022] EWCA Civ 1612
Amendments made by s97 FA 2022 to s29 TMA 1970 have retrospective effect, but with exceptions for appeals notified before 30 June 2021 concerning the Wilkes issue, including cases with a 'temporary pause' before 27 October 2021.
s97 FA 2022
A 'temporary pause' requires HMRC to explicitly notify suspension of work on the appeal pending determination of another appeal.
Niewiarowski [2023]UKFTT 649 (TC)
HMRC has a duty to provide relevant case law to the Tribunal and the appellant, particularly when the appellant is unrepresented.
SRA Code of Conduct, paragraph 2.7
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
HMRC's assessments are not 'relevant protected assessments' under s97 FA 2022 due to the temporary pause and the pre-30 June 2021 appeal notification. The Court of Appeal decision in Wilkes applies, rendering the assessments invalid.
No costs awarded to the appellant.
While HMRC's failure to include relevant case law in their bundle was unacceptable, the additional costs incurred by the unrepresented appellant were negligible.