Newcastle United Football Company Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 223 (TC)
Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v The Commissioners for HMRC
21 November 2024
[2024] UKFTT 1046 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A hospital challenged a tax bill. They wanted HMRC to share internal documents about the rules involved. The judge said these documents weren't important enough to justify the effort of finding them, and that the judge, not HMRC, decides the rules anyway. So, the hospital's request was denied.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against HMRC VAT assessment (£114,988 originally, reduced to £13,289.25 after ADR).
- •Appellant (Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust) sought specific disclosure of HMRC policy rulings relating to the Contracted-Out Services Direction.
- •Application for disclosure was initially made via email on 27 January 2023 and further particulars provided on 18 March 2024.
- •The dispute centers on the interpretation of headings 14, 31, and 33 of the Contracted-Out Services Direction.
- •Appellant argued the sought documents would assist in formulating its case and resolving uncertainties.
- •HMRC argued the request was unclear, potentially involved non-existent documents, was a fishing expedition, and was disproportionate to the amount at stake.
Legal Principles
Tribunal has power to order specific disclosure under Rules 5 and 16 of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) Rules, considering the overriding objective of fairness and justice (Rule 2).
First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) Rules
Principles for specific disclosure applications, considering relevance, need for a fair determination, proportionality, and the overriding objective.
Staysure.co.uk Ltd v HMRC [2018] UKFTT 584; McCabe v HMRC [2020] UKUT 266
For an order for document production, there must be a real likelihood that the evidence will materially assist the tribunal.
Mehta [2015] UKFTT 396
Burden of establishing that specific disclosure should be ordered lies with the applicant.
Judge's agreement with Miss Inglis' submission.
Statutory construction is the sole province of the trial judge; HMRC's views, while potentially informative, are not determinative of the law's interpretation.
Judge's own reasoning
Specific advice to individual taxpayers is not relevant to the purposive interpretation of legislation unless the taxpayer is impugning HMRC's conduct.
Judge's own reasoning
An appellant might be entitled to rely on published rulings, but it is not entitled to rely on unpublished rulings.
Judge's agreement with Miss Inglis' submission
Outcomes
Application for specific disclosure rejected.
The sought documents were deemed irrelevant to the straightforward issue of statutory interpretation, potentially non-existent, and obtaining them disproportionate to the amount at stake (£13,289.25). The application was characterized as a 'fishing expedition'.
Similar Cases
Coopervision Lens Care Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 351 (TC)
Foundry Supplies UK Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 656 (TC)
Rettig Heating Group UK Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKUT 315 (TCC)
Essex Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 69 (TC)