© 2025 by Michael Firth KC, Gray's Inn Tax Chambers
Contact: michael.firth@taxbar.com
Procedure.Tax
For additional search results use Google and enter:
site:procedure.tax [search term]
M30: Withdrawing from an appeal
A party can withdraw its case
“(1) Subject to any provision in an enactment relating to withdrawal or settlement of particular proceedings, a party may give notice to the Tribunal of the withdrawal of the case made by it in the Tribunal proceedings, or any part of that case –
by sending or delivering to the Tribunal a written notice of withdrawal; or
orally at a hearing.
(2) The Tribunal must notify each party in writing of its receipt of a withdrawal under this rule.” (FTT Rules rr.17(1) and (2)).
Proposal to withdraw is not a notice of withdrawal
“The phrase “to purpose that these appeals to be withdraw” [in the email of 7 September] must (as already observed) have meant “to propose that these appeals be withdrawn with no direction as to costs” and “we look forward to receiving your response to this proposal”. There is no mention of any response from HMRC, being the only party with an interest in claiming costs from St Annes… The 7 September 2009 e-mail cannot therefore be construed as “a written notice of withdrawal” within rule 17(1)(a).” (St Annes Distributors Ltd v. HMRC [2010] UKUT 458 (TCC), §§20…21).
Subject to any enactment
“As to the second sentence I note first that by virtue of the words in rule 17(1) “Subject to any provision in an enactment relating to withdrawal or settlement of particular proceedings”, s 54 will, if necessary, overrule rule 17. An agreement under s 54 TMA may be made at any time “before the appeal is determined by the Tribunal”: see s 54(1) TMA.” (Patrick v. HMRC [2015] UKFTT 508 (TC), §21).
​
Party withdrawing case does not automatically terminate the FTT’s jurisdiction to decide the appeal
"[24]... (12) Once an appeal has been made by the taxpayer (whether to HMRC alone or notified to the FTT) the taxpayer cannot unilaterally withdraw that appeal; rather, pursuant to s. 54(4) TMA 1970, HMRC can indicate that it is unwilling for the appeal to be withdrawn. If the appeal has been notified to the FTT, and HMRC objects to the appeal being withdrawn on the basis of a case seeking an increase in the amount stated in the original assessment, the FTT is required to determine the matter and may (under s. 50(7) TMA 1970) increase the assessment if it finds that the taxpayer was undercharged in the original assessment: HMRC v CM Utilities [2017] UKUT 305 (TCC)." (R (oao Fluid System Technologies (Scotland) Limited v. HMRC [2025] UKUT 278 (TCC), Bacon J and Judge Raghavan)
​​​
"[35] In our judgment, the effect of statutory provisions of the TMA (and by extension those relating to NICs) is clear and supported by authority. In a case where HMRC give notice of objection to the appeal being treated as withdrawn, and puts the case for an increase, the FTT retains its jurisdiction, and it continues to have a duty, to increase the assessment or determination in accordance with s 50(7) (and analogous 10 provisions) to the extent that it decides that the appellant has been undercharged by the original assessment or determination.
[36] Rule 17 is entirely compatible with that analysis. Not only is it expressly subject to statutory provisions relating to withdrawal or settlement (of which s 54 is plainly one), and says nothing itself about the consequences of withdrawal, it is also 15 drafted in terms that it is the case of the party seeking to withdraw that is the subject of the withdrawal. Where it is the appellant who withdraws, that does not necessarily mean that the whole of the proceedings must be regarded as having come to an end. The proceedings remain to be determined, whether as a matter of statute, as for example, where HMRC do not object, by a combination of s 54(4) and s 54(1), or by a 20 decision by the tribunal, which in relevant circumstances will include consideration of whether the appellant has been undercharged and the assessment should be increased accordingly." (HMRC v. CM Utilities Limited [2017] UKUT 305 (TC), Arnold J and Judge Berner)
​
“ARTG 8460 goes on to say in the last sentence quoted that withdrawal of a case is tantamount to a decision of the tribunal against the withdrawing party. The important word there is “tantamount”, because in practice what happens is that, on being notified of a withdrawal under rule 17, the Tribunal office will simply to put away their papers. But that does not always happen as the Tribunal still has the ability to make a decision which does actually decide the appeal, and in the recent case of Vaultdawn Ltd & ors v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 383 (TC) (“Vaultdawn”), Judge Kempster did just that (see [12]). And I see nothing which suggests that the Tribunal must automatically decide in favour of the non-withdrawing party, particularly if it is the appellant who withdraws but HMRC have the burden of proof…in the light of the above analysis I consider that the appellant did not withdraw his appeals, he withdrew his case in relation to the appeals, that is to say that he had a reasonable excuse for not filing his returns in time. As Vaultdawn shows I could have gone on to make a decision.” (Patrick v. HMRC [2015] UKFTT 508 (TC), §§18…19).
“HMRC have confirmed that they accept the discovery assessments raised on Vaultdown Limited for the accounting periods ended 31 October 1999 and 31 October 2002 [originally stated as 2000 but formally corrected subsequently] were invalid; accordingly, the appeals against those particular assessments will be allowed. My comments in para 4 below relate to the other aspects of the Lead Case appeals…As communicated to the parties by email on 5 November, the emails from the Lead Case Appellants’ representative dated 4 November are taken as a notice of withdrawal of the Lead Case Appellants’ case in the proceedings, pursuant to Rule 17(1). Normally, that would conclude the proceedings without any further action by the Tribunal; however, as these are the lead cases under a Rule 18 Direction, I consider it is best to formalise the position by issuing a decision notice dismissing the appeals (being case references TC/2009/16362, TC/2010/3064, TC/2011/816, TC/2011/1712, and TC/2013/1109 – except for the discovery assessments described in para 3 above) (“the Formal Lead Case Decision”). That will be issued after the expiry of the deadline for any reinstatement application - which I calculate to be 2 December 2013 (Rule 17(4) refers).” (Vaultdawn Limited v. HMRC [2015] UKFTT 383 (TC), §11).
“…the Commissioners, having set before them the duty of ascertaining and settling according to the best of their judgment the sum on which the taxpayer ought to be assessed, are required to make the assessment in accordance with that judgment, and in view of that I find it quite impossible to accept the argument that the giving of the notice of appeal is merely, as it were, a sort of offer, or is merely an act from which the taxpayer can at his discretion at any time resile, subject to his obeying the precepts and so forth, and that he can at any moment prevent the Commissioners from ascertaining and settling the sum to be assessed by the simple process of intimating by word or lay deed that he withdraws from the appeal, or rather that he withdraws the notice of appeal, and that there is no appeal pending at all.” (R v. Special Commissioners of Income Tax (ex p. Elmhirst 20 TC 381 at 393 – taxpayer was trying to avoid assessment being increased).
​
​
- Not to make findings on points no longer in dispute
​
"[15]...If Mr Jafari was withdrawing his appeals to the FTT against all of HMRC’s decisions, then the FTT should have said as much and followed the procedure applicable to withdrawals set out in Rule 17 of the FTT’s rules of procedure (the “FTT Rules”). The result of a complete withdrawal would have been that there was no longer any decision for the FTT to make because HMRC’s decisions were no longer under challenge...
...
[31] In my judgment, these considerations support a conclusion that Mr Jafari was withdrawing the entirety of his appeals to the FTT. The FTT should have taken that withdrawal at face value and not gone on to make findings on matters that were no longer in dispute. In my judgment, the correct course for me, given the error of law in the Decision, is to set the Decision aside and remake it in a manner that gives proper effect to Mr Jafari’s withdrawal of the entirety of his case. That consideration means that I will remake the Decision such that all the appeals against HMRC decisions that were before the FTT are to be dismissed." (HMRC v. Jafari [2022] UKUT 119 (TCC), Judge Jonathan Richards)
​
- Appeal continuing to decide HMRC's case that assessment should be increased
"[28] The circumstances at issue in this case are that HMRC has indicated that it is unwilling that the appeal should be treated as withdrawn. It has done so because it considers that the Assessments ought to be increased. Those circumstances are themselves the subject of statutory provision in s 54(4) TMA. Under that sub-section, where an appellant wishes not to proceed with an appeal, and gives notice to that 35 effect (which in the context of the FTT’s procedure could only be done by withdrawal under Rule 17), it is only where HMRC have not given notice within 30 days that they are unwilling that the appeal should be treated as withdrawn that the original assessment is treated as agreed and thereby has effect, under s 54(1), as if the FTT had determined the appeal and had upheld the assessment without variation. Where that is 40 not the case, there is no basis upon which the original assessment is to be treated as upheld." (HMRC v. CM Utilities Limited [2017] UKUT 305 (TC), Arnold J and Judge Berner)
​
HMRC withdrawing decisions under appeal
​
- Withdrawal of VAT assessment leaves FTT with no jurisdiction
"[52] At [52] – [57] of C K Freight, Judge Bailey set out the consequences that must follow from the withdrawal of a decision (which includes an assessment). I agree with her analysis which, in my view, can be summarised as follows. If HMRC withdraw a decision or assessment before the taxpayer makes an appeal to the FTT, there is no right to appeal under section 83 VATA94 because there is no matter within the section to appeal against (see Furtado v City of London Brewery Company [1914] 1 KB 709 as discussed by the Upper Tribunal in LS v HMRC and RS v HMRC [2017] UKUT 257 (AAC) ('LS and RS') at [20]). Accordingly, the FTT never has jurisdiction in relation to the matter. Where HMRC withdraw a decision or assessment after an appeal has been made to the FTT, the FTT ceases to have jurisdiction from that point and must strike out the proceedings or the relevant part of the proceedings (see LS and RS at [25] and rule 8(2)(a) FTT Rules). However, that does not necessarily mean that the proceedings are at an end. There may be an application for costs in some cases. The FTT has jurisdiction to deal with an application for costs under rule 10 of the FTT Rules even where the substantive appeal has been struck out. Accordingly, where a decision is withdrawn, the appropriate direction will usually be to strike out that part of the proceedings, ie the substantive appeal, and invite the appellant to make any application in consequence, eg for costs, within a specified period of time. Only after all ancillary matters have been dealt with should the case be closed.
[53] Applying the above approach to this case, the FTT ceased to have jurisdiction in relation to the VAT Liability Appeals insofar as they related to the VAT assessments issued by HMRC on 21 September 2023, 18 December 2023 and 23 February 2024 when HMRC gave notice to the FTT of the withdrawal of their case in relation to those assessments on 25 October 2024. As the FTT no longer has jurisdiction, it follows that I must strike out that the part of the proceedings relating to the VAT assessments issued on 21 September 2023, 18 December 2023 and 23 February 2024 and I so direct. For reasons that will become apparent, I consider that any consequential applications that Align may wish to make may be deferred." (Align Technology Switzerland GmbH v. HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1100 (TC), Judge Sinfield)
​
- Withdrawal of VAT liability decision leaving FTT with no jurisdiction
"[54] The same result must, of course, follow in relation to Align's appeal under section 83(1)(b) against HMRC's decision that supplies of the Aligners were subject to VAT at the standard rate if that decision has been withdrawn. However, Align submitted that HMRC had not withdrawn the decision and their appeal under section 83(1)(b) remained to be determined. Align contended that the VAT Liability Appeals should not be struck out but should take place in January 2025 to decide the issue of whether the supplies of the Aligners are standard rated for VAT. HMRC contended that the decision in relation to the VAT treatment of the Aligners had been withdrawn and therefore the FTT no longer had jurisdiction to hear any aspect of the VAT Liability Appeals." (Align Technology Switzerland GmbH v. HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1100 (TC), Judge Sinfield)
​
- Withdrawal of C18 decision leaving FTT with no jurisdiction
"[53] I understand the Tribunals in Rayam Gayatri Silks and in Learna both accepted that Rule 8(2) would apply if the underlying decision had been withdrawn before an appeal was made to the Tribunal. In that case the Tribunal proceedings would be struck out because the Tribunal would never have had jurisdiction. I agree with (and am bound by) the Upper Tribunal's conclusion at paragraph 25 of LS and RS that:
It makes no difference in principle to the reasoning whether the earlier decision ceased to have operative effect before or after the claimant lodged the appeal.
[54] I conclude that if the underlying decision is withdrawn during the course of proceedings then, at that point, the Tribunal ceases to have jurisdiction.
[55] The consequence of these conclusions is that, once the Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction in respect of an appeal that was originally validly made then the Tribunal must - in accordance with Rule 8(2) - strike out the appeal. I conclude that the Tribunal does not have the power to allow an appeal against a decision that no longer exists." (Charles Kendall Freight Limited v. HMRC [2024] UKFTT 492 (TC), Judge Bailey)
​​
- Or: FTT not deprived of jurisdiction
"[15] I would distinguish the circumstances in this appeal from the circumstances under consideration in LS & RS v HMRC. In the cases considered in that appeal, new decisions under s18 TCA had the effect of “lapsing” and replacing the appealed decisions. However, in the circumstances of this appeal, HMRC have not issued a new decision which has had the effect of replacing the appealed decision. They have merely withdrawn the appealed decision.
[16] I would also distinguish this appeal from the circumstances in Furtado (Surveyor of Taxes) v City of London Brewery Company (1913) 6 TC 382 which was cited in LS & RS v HMRC. With all respect to the Upper Tribunal, it appears that the Administrative Appeals Chamber may have misunderstood the administrative process that applied in 1911 to the determination of income tax liabilities, and the role at that time of the Commissioners for the General Purposes of Income Tax. The Upper Tribunal’s decision appears to say that there was no underlying decision capable of being appealed (there was just an application for a decision). But it is clear from reading the Case Stated [1] that the General Commissioners had made a decision, which the predecessor to HMRC considered was wrong and wished to appeal. The substantive issue before the Court of Appeal was the extent to which the legislation allowed decisions of the General Commissioners to be appealed to the High Court. The facts were that the City of London Brewery Company had made an application to the General Commissioners for a tax relief. The General Commissioners granted the tax relief. The Surveyor of Taxes then sought to appeal that decision to the High Court. In the Court of Appeal, Swinfen Eady LJ (delivering the judgment of the court) said:
The Rule of Law is that although certiorari lies unless expressly taken away yet an Appeal does not lie unless expressly given by Statute.
[17] The Court of Appeal held that the relevant legislation only conferred a right of appeal in respect of decisions of the General Commissioners on an appeal on a tax assessment, and not on a decision on an application for a tax relief. In contrast, in the circumstances of this case, it is not disputed that this Tribunal has jurisdiction in respect of decisions of the kind under appeal.
[18] I find that the withdrawal by HMRC of an appealed decision cannot completely oust the jurisdiction of this Tribunal. If that were correct, then, for example, the Tribunal would have no jurisdiction to award costs against HMRC under Rule 10(1)(b) in circumstances where HMRC have acted unreasonably and withdrew an assessment (see for example First Choice Recruitment v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 412 (TC)). If the withdrawal of the assessment had the effect of denying jurisdiction to the Tribunal, then no costs awards could ever be made against HMRC in circumstances where they withdrew an assessment which was being appealed before the Tribunal.
[19] I agree with Judge Berner in Rasam Gayatri Silks that the mere fact that a decision is withdrawn after an appeal has been validly made does not necessarily mean that this Tribunal no longer has jurisdiction in respect of the appeal." (Learna Limited v. HMRC [2023] UKFTT 972 (TC), Judge Aleksander)
​
Whether decision withdrawn​
​
- Decision on VAT liability of supplies not withdrawn where HMRC only agree not to act on it for certain periods
​
"[57] ... It clear from the Settlement Agreement and subsequent correspondence between the parties that HMRC maintained their view that VAT is properly chargeable on the supplies of the Aligners by Align. In the Settlement Agreement, HMRC only agreed not to act on their view, ie not to assess Align for VAT, in the circumstances of this case. It follows that, absent a change in their view of the law, the decision that VAT is properly chargeable on the supply still stands notwithstanding HMRC's decision not to enforce it for the periods assessed." (Align Technology Switzerland GmbH v. HMRC [2024] UKFTT 1100 (TC), Judge Sinfield)
​
Alternative decisions appealed
​
“As I have already set out above, Orchid had never appealed against any decision that it should pay £74,166. Orchid appealed against HMRC's decision that the partnership's profit should be increased by £1,146,102 or, in the alternative, by £444,996. By the time of the withdrawal, HMRC had conceded its primary case and I consider that the decision under appeal was that the profit should be increased by £444,996. It follows that, under section 54(4), the consequence of Orchid's withdrawal of its appeal is that the decision that the partnership's profit should be increased by £444,996 is upheld without variation.” (Orchid Properties v. HMRC [2012] UKFTT 651 (TC), §28).
Appeal should not usually be heard if there is no longer any dispute
“I am firmly of the view that the court should not continue to hear this appeal. HMRC's first point that the appeal has wide ramifications is simply not a sufficient ground for the court continuing to hear an appeal where there is no longer any issue of substance between the parties as to their private law rights. Subject to very limited exceptions indeed, issues of this nature are much better decided on the basis of adversarial argument where the parties have real opposing commercial interests in the outcome.” (Portland Gas Storage Limited v. HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 559, §12 – HMRC rejected T’s application to amend its SDLT return as out of time, FTT held it had no jurisdiction over the question, UT held that it did, T withdrew application to amend before CA heard jurisdiction appeal).
Important public law questions unlikely to be otherwise decided
“The factor, however, which appears to have influenced the Court of Appeal in [Don Pasquale] was not so much the analogy with public law but the fact that it would, for technical reasons, be extremely difficult for another appeal to be brought before the court. In such circumstances the court thought it was a sufficiently extreme case for the court to go ahead with the appeal.” (Portland Gas Storage Limited v. HMRC [2015] EWCA Civ 559, §8).
​
Tribunal should not make findings on matters no longer in dispute​
"[31] In my judgment, these considerations support a conclusion that Mr Jafari was withdrawing the entirety of his appeals to the FTT. The FTT should have taken that withdrawal at face value and not gone on to make findings on matters that were no longer in dispute. In my judgment, the correct course for me, given the error of law in the Decision, is to set the Decision aside and remake it in a manner that gives proper effect to Mr Jafari’s withdrawal of the entirety of his case. That consideration means that I will remake the Decision such that all the appeals against HMRC decisions that were before the FTT are to be dismissed." (HMRC v. Jafari [2022] UKUT 119 (TCC), Judge Jonathan Richards)
Direct tax: notice of withdrawal to HMRC deemed to be s.54 agreement
"(4) Where—
(a) a person who has given a notice of appeal notifies the inspector or other proper officer of the Crown, whether orally or in writing, that he desires not to proceed with the appeal; and
(b) thirty days have elapsed since the giving of the notification without the inspector or other proper officer giving to the appellant notice in writing indicating that he is unwilling that the appeal should be treated as withdrawn,
the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect as if, at the date of the appellant's notification, the appellant and the inspector or other proper officer had come to an agreement, orally or in writing, as the case may be, that the assessment or decision under appeal should be upheld without variation." (TMA 1970, s.54(4))
​
Unless HMRC give notice that they do not accept withdrawal
​
See s.54(4)(b), above.
​
If HMRC object, the original decision appealed stands
​
“[28] Although it is possible to distinguish Orchid on the facts as, unlike the present case, HMRC did not object to the withdrawal by Orchid of its case under rule 17 of the Procedure Rules, the finding by Judge Sinfield that in the absence of an agreement under s 54(1) TMA the original decision appealed against stood is, in my judgment, clearly applicable to the present case where the Company has withdrawn its case, under Rule 17 of the Procedure Rules, and where, albeit by reason of HMRC’s objection to that withdrawal, there is no agreement under s 54(1) TMA.” (C M Utilities Limited v. HMRC [2016] UKFTT 358 (TC), Judge John Brooks)
Effect of s.54 agreement
​
See Chapter M34: Settling appeals by agreement
​
- HMRC failing to object within 30 days leading to loss of opportunity to argue for higher sum
[31] The FTT placed particular reliance on another decision of the FTT (Judge Sinfield) in Orchid Properties v Revenue and Customs Commissioners [2012] 20 UKFTT 651 (TC). In that case, in unusual circumstances, the FTT declined to accede to an application by HMRC to set aside the withdrawal of an appeal by the appellant. The circumstances were that an amended statement of case had been served by HMRC which had erroneously stated a particular figure for an increase in partnership profit, instead of that figure being described as the profit per partner. That was in 25 contrast to HMRC’s original decisions, which had been put in the alternative, and which at the material date had resolved into a single decision under appeal which put the partnership profit at a considerably higher figure than that set out in the amended statement of case. It was accepted that there had been a valid withdrawal of the appeal by the appellant. HMRC had not objected to the withdrawal within the time 30 provided by s 54(4)(b).
[32] In deciding that HMRC’s application to reinstate could not fall within the set aside provisions of Rule 38 of the FTT Rules because the tribunal had made no decision which disposed of proceedings, the FTT in Orchid Properties made the point, at [25] of its decision, that a withdrawal by a party to an appeal did not require 35 a decision of the tribunal. As the FTT said, the tribunal could do nothing but accept a withdrawal that was validly made.
[33] There is no doubt that the FTT in Orchid Properties was right to say that on a withdrawal no decision of the FTT is required in order to give effect to the withdrawal. But that in itself said nothing about the consequences of a withdrawal. 40 Those consequences were considered by the FTT in the particular circumstances of that case. Where HMRC had not objected to the withdrawal within 30 days, the consequence was clear. It was the decision under appeal that was treated as upheld without variation. A separate argument that the amended statement of case and the withdrawal of the appeal was a section 54(1) agreement was rejected." (HMRC v. CM Utilities Limited [2017] UKUT 305 (TC), Arnold J and Judge Berner)
​​
“My decision is that HMRC's application to have Orchid's appeal reinstated must be refused. I have also concluded that there was no agreement under section 54(1) of the TMA to settle the appeal. As a consequence of withdrawing the appeal in the absence of an agreement, Orchid has made itself liable to pay the tax due on the basis of HMRC’s alternative argument with no opportunity to appeal against that decision.” (Orchid Properties v. HMRC [2012] UKFTT 651 (TC), §28).
​
VAT: notice of withdrawal to HMRC deemed to be s.85 agreement
"(4) Where—
(a) a person who has given a notice of appeal notifies HMRC, whether orally or in writing, that he desires not to proceed with the appeal; and
(b) 30 days have elapsed since the giving of the notification without HMRC giving to the appellant notice in writing indicating that they are unwilling that the appeal should be treated as withdrawn,
the preceding provisions of this section shall have effect as if, at the date of the appellant's notification, the appellant and HMRC had come to an agreement, orally or in writing, as the case may be, that the decision under appeal should be upheld without variation.
(5) References in this section to an agreement being come to with an appellant and the giving of notice or notification to or by an appellant include references to an agreement being come to with, and the giving of notice or notification to or by, a person acting on behalf of the appellant in relation to the appeal." (VATA 1995, s.85(4), (5))
​
Does not apply where HMRC withdraw their decision first
​
"[176] However, it is instructive to consider why s 85(4) was not considered by either party, by the FTT, or by the High Court, given that (a) s 85(1) was plainly in issue and (b) Matalan had withdrawn its appeal. My view is as follows:
(1) Section 85(4) provides that, on a withdrawal, the parties are deemed to have come to an agreement that “that the decision under appeal should be upheld without variation”.
(2) It is a necessary element of that deeming provision that at the time of the withdrawal there is a “decision under appeal”.
(3) Matalan did not withdraw its appeal until after HMRC had “withdrawn the disputed decision”. There was thus no “decision under appeal” on which the deeming provision could operate.
(4) Thus, although Matalan withdrew its appeal, s 85(4) could not operate to deem the parties to have come to an agreement confirming a decision which was no longer extant. Such an outcome would, to borrow the language of Lord Briggs in Fowler, be an unjust, absurd and anomalous result." (Telent Technology Services Limited v. HMRC [2022] UKFTT 147 (TC), Judge Redston)
​
Unless HMRC give notice that they do not accept withdrawal
​
See s.85(4)(b), above.
​
No change of mind after 30 days
“[32] Section 85 is quite clear in its terms. If an appellant, or someone on its behalf, notifies HMRC that it desires not to proceed with an appeal and there is no objection from HMRC under s 85(4)(b), then the parties are deemed to have agreed that the appeal is upheld, with the same consequences as if the Tribunal had determined it. This is the effect of s 85(4), read with s 85(1.) The only caveat to this is where the appellant notifies HMRC within 30 days of the original notification (being the date of the deemed agreement) that it no longer wishes to withdraw. In that case the effect of s 85(2) is that the deemed Tribunal determination created by the withdrawal does not take effect. There is no power in s 85 for this 30 day time limit to be extended, and in my view rules 5 and 17 of the Tribunal Rules cannot supply such a power.” (OWD Ltd v. HMRC, Judge Falk).
“Had it been made either within the 28 days stated by the Tribunal Rules or within the 30 days permitted by s 85 VATA I would have been minded to grant the application to reinstate the appeal. However, as Judge Falk observed in OWD there is no power in s 85 VATA for this 30 day time limit to be extended. I agree with her that rules 5 and 17 of the Procedure Rules cannot supply such a power.”(Libby’s Market Place Ltd v. HMRC [2018] UKFTT 563 (TC), §14 Judge Brooks).
No duty on Tribunal to consider whether assessment too high or too low
​
"[147] Where, as here, an appeal has been withdrawn before the hearing, HMRC’s decision is deemed to have been upheld “without variation”. As the UT said in Albert House, the provisions relating to the consequences of withdrawal are an express statutory exception to the Tribunal’s general duty to consider whether the assessment is too high or too low. It is, instead, the decision itself which is deemed to have been agreed as between the parties." (Telent Technology Services Limited v. HMRC [2022] UKFTT 147 (TC), Judge Redston)
​
Effect of s.85 agreement
​
See Chapter M33: Settling appeals by agreement
​
Applies where HMRC notified of withdrawal by Tribunal
"[44] However, in Mr Hussain’s case, Ms Greene did not notify HMRC. Instead, she gave notice to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal told HMRC the appeal was withdrawn. I considered whether that indirect notification was sufficient for s 85 to take effect.
[45] A similar situation was considered in Albert House v HMRC [2020] UKUT 373 (TCC) in relation to Sch 10, para 37 of Finance Act 2003; that appeal concerned stamp duty land tax (“SDLT”), but the wording of the relevant provision is the same as that in VATA s 85.
[46] In Albert House, the appellant had withdrawn its appeal, but HMRC objected to the withdrawal and wanted the case to proceed. VATA s 85(4) and the equivalent SDLT provision both state that if HMRC wish to prevent a withdrawal taking effect, they must give the appellant notice in writing to that effect. In Albert House, HMRC had not given notice to the appellant; instead, they had only written to the Tribunal, and the Tribunal had informed the appellant. The appellant’s case was that this was insufficient to meet the statutory requirements, and that s 85 required the parties to notify each other directly, as summarised by the UT at [66]:
“That statutory provision…contained a strict requirement that HMRC actually gave notice of its objection directly to an appellant and this requirement was not satisfied by using an unauthorised proxy (i.e. the FTT or the FTT's administration), even where the notice was then passed on to, and received by, the appellant in time.”
[47] The UT rejected that submission, holding at [74] that the purpose of the provision was that “an appellant who seeks to withdraw its appeal should know within 30 days whether HMRC are objecting to that withdrawal and should be told this in writing so that there is a record”. It went on to hold at [88] (emphases in original):
“The real question is whether HMRC gave notice to the Appellants. In our view, HMRC did indeed give notice to the Appellants. The Appellants clearly received, within the 30 day period, a written notice from which they were able to understand that HMRC were objecting to the withdrawal of the appeals. When the statute requires that HMRC must “give the appellant notice in writing” (paragraph 37(4)(b)), construed purposively, the word “give” looks at the position of an appellant (the intended recipient of the notice) and asks: has the intended recipient actually received the written notice?”
[48] In my judgment, the position is the same here. Ms Greene wrote to the Tribunal on 8 May 2019 withdrawing the appeal, and the Tribunal informed HMRC of the withdrawal by letter on 29 May 2019. There was no doubt that HMRC had been told about the withdrawal; this was the purpose of the provision. Section 85 therefore applied; as a result, the First Appeal was deemed to have been decided by the Tribunal, and no reinstatement was possible." (Hussain v. HMRC [2023] UKFTT 40 (TC), Judge Redston)
​
​
Abuse of process to relitigate matter following withdrawal
“Therefore, on 18 April 2011, as a result of withdrawing its appeal there was in effect a binding Tribunal determination that Meridian’s claims for input tax for 04/06 and 05/06 was incorrect as it was overstated and had no right to deduct input tax attributable to the transactions for which its recovery had been denied on the basis that it knew or should have known that these transaction were connected to fraud. This therefore disposes of the issue of whether the 04/06 and 05/06 returns are correct and, as such, Meridian is estopped from advancing the same arguments in the present appeal. In addition we find that it would be an abuse of process were it to be allowed to do so.” (Meridian Defence & Security Ltd v. HMRC [2014] UKFTT 300 (TC), §24, Judge John Brooks).
​