Stuart Moore v The Commissioners for HMRC [2025] UKFTT 1599 (TC)

[2025] UKFTT 01599 (TC)Case No TC09728
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
Hearing Heard on: 25 November 2025Date Judgment date: 17 December 2025
By remote video hearing
Appeal reference: TC/2023/16481
VAT registration and assessment – application to strike out – jurisdiction – no – reasonable prospect of success – no – appeal struck out
Before
JUDGE VIMAL TILAKAPALA
Between
STUART MOOREAppellantTHE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMSRespondentMr Jeff Wine, Wine & Co. for AppellantMs Opemipo Abolude, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs’ Solicitor’s Office for RespondentsDECISION

Introduction

[1]This decision concerns an application by the Respondents (HMRC) for a direction under Rule 8(2)(a) and Rule 8(3)(c) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (the “Tribunal Rules”) to strike out an appeal by the Appellant (Mr Stuart Moore) against the Respondents’ decision that he should have been registered for VAT from 1 October 2020 to 31 January 2021 (the “relevant period”).[2]For the reasons given below I grant HMRC’s application and strike out the appeal.

The Law

[3]Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules provides, so far as relevant, that:
“8(2) The Tribunal must strike out the whole of part of the proceedings if the Tribunal – (a) does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them …” (3) The Tribunal may strike out the whole or part of the proceedings if- […] (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the case, or part of it, succeeding.” (a) does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them …” […] (c) the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the case, or part of it, succeeding.”
[4]Schedule I, para 1 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”) provides, so far as relevant, that: “1(1) Subject to sub-paragraphs (3) to (7) below, a person who makes taxable supplies but is not registered under this Act becomes liable to be registered under this Schedule-(a) at the end of any month if the person is UK-established and the value of his taxable supplies in the period of one year then ending has exceeded £85,000; or(b) at any time, if the person is UK established and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the value of his taxable supplies in the period of 30 days then beginning will exceed [£85,000]. (a) at the end of any month if the person is UK-established and the value of his taxable supplies in the period of one year then ending has exceeded £85,000; or (b) at any time, if the person is UK established and there are reasonable grounds for believing that the value of his taxable supplies in the period of 30 days then beginning will exceed [£85,000].[5]Section 83(1) VATA provides, so far as relevant, that: “(1) Subject to [sections 83G and 84] an appeal shall lie to the tribunal with respect to any of the following matters- (a) the registration or cancellation of registration of any person under this Act; […] (p) an assessment (i) under section 73(1) or (2) in respect of a period for which the appellant has made a return under this Act (a) the registration or cancellation of registration of any person under this Act; […] (p) an assessment (i) under section 73(1) or (2) in respect of a period for which the appellant has made a return under this Act[6]This hearing was conducted by video link with prior notice having been given on the gov.uk website with information given as to how members of the public or representatives of the media could attend. As such, the hearing was held in public.[7]I was provided with a hearing bundle of 234 pages and a skeleton argument from HMRC.

The Background and the Facts

[8]The Appellant did not dispute the facts presented by HMRC and I summarise the key facts below.[9]On 30 March 2020, WatchtraderUK Ltd (the Company) of which the Appellant was sole director and shareholder went into liquidation.[10]HMRC discovered that two of the Company’s bank accounts were being used post liquidation and obtained bank statements for those accounts from the Company’s liquidator.[11]On 9 January 2023 a letter was issued to the liquidator asking for it to provide full information about the transactions reflected in the Company’s accounts, which HMRC believed to have been carried out in the course of business.[12]On 19 April 2023, having received no information from the liquidator, a “liable no longer liable” (“LNLL”) notice was issued to the Company for the period from 14 July 2020 to 11 December 2020, with a total calculated income of £743,475.54 and £123,912.59 of due VAT.[13]On 9 June 2023 the liquidator sent a review request to HMRC together with an e-mail from the Appellant dated 8 June 2023 in which the Appellant stated that the transactions reflected in the Company’s accounts were carried out by him acting as an individual and were not transactions carried out by the Company.[14]On 3 August 2023 a review conclusion letter was sent to the Company cancelling the decision to register the Company for VAT.[15]On 12 October 2023 following further investigation, and having received no VAT registration from the Appellant, HMRC issued a LNLL notice to him notifying him(a) that he was liable to be registered for VAT from 1 October 2020 to 31 January 2021 and(b) of a due and payable VAT assessment of £31,945.58.[16]On 8 November 2023 HMRC the Appellant submitted a notice of appeal regarding the VAT assessment. HMRC responded, informing the Appellant that there was no right of appeal against the assessment (as he had not submitted a VAT return) and only a right of appeal against the decision on VAT registration.[17]On 15 January 2024 the Appellant withdrew his appeal against the assessment and on 15 January 2024 submitted a new appeal. The grounds of appeal stated:
“Our grounds for appeal are that our client should not have been registered for VAT”
[18]The Tribunal gave directions requiring the Appellant to provide, within 14 days from 11 April 2024:
“full and detailed grounds on which they are challenging the compulsory registration”
[19]On 24 May 2024 the Appellant responded as follows:
“This is a period of some confusion with HMRC and our client, whereby the case with HMRC had gone to the Tribunal and the Tribunal found in favour of Stuart Moore and costs were awarded against HMRC. It is still unsure whether this payment which HMRC are assessing should be included on the VAT return of Timepiece Trading Ltd which was a company that had been set up following the liquidation of Watchtrader (UK) Ltd. We feel HMRC as Respondents have not looked into this case correctly, and there is a serious complaint already with HMRC against Riyaz Patel who has instigated this assessment. We can confirm we are challenging this compulsory registration.”
We can confirm we are challenging this compulsory registration.”[20]On 5 July 2024 HMRC submitted their application for the appeal to be struck out which the Appellant objected to on 22 November 2024.[21]The Appellant accepts that the value of goods supplied by him in the relevant period was in excess of £85,000 (being the then current VAT registration annual threshold). Submissions The Appellant’s

Submissions

[22]In summary, Mr Wine submitted that HMRC appeared to be pursuing the Appellant unfairly. He believed that this was related to an earlier case in which HMRC had challenged the Company’s VAT position on the basis that it was not eligible for the traders’ margin scheme. The Company appealed but before the appeal was heard HMRC withdrew from the case. Mr Wine added that the Tribunal had awarded costs against HMRC as a consequence of its unreasonable behaviour. HMRC’s approach in that case was, according to Mr Wine, driven by the improper actions of a particular HMRC officer against whom the Appellant had subsequently lodged a formal complaint. Mr Wine said that he was aware that the same officer was involved in the decision to issue the current assessment against Mr Moore.[23]Mr Wine also submitted that the assessment was incorrect as HMRC had failed to take into account the traders’ second hand margin scheme.

HMRC’s submissions

[24]Ms Abolude submitted that:(1) The Appellant’s complaints about HMRC’s internal processes and the behaviour of a particular HMRC are outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction.(2) The Tribunal has jurisdiction only to review HMRC’s decision on registering the Appellant for VAT.(3) The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider the Appellant’s complaints about the amount of the assessment as the Appellant has not submitted a VAT return.

Discussion

[25]The Appellant’s grievance in relation to the earlier case with HMRC and the named HMRC employee is clearly a significant issue for him and I note that he is still waiting for the outcome of his complaint which Mr Wine confirmed is progressing.[26]Ms Abolude submitted that the Appellant’s concern in relation to HMRC’s behaviour leading to the Assessment is outside the scope of this Tribunal’s jurisdiction and is instead an administrative issue within HMRC for which the Appellant’s course of action should be judicial review. She cited in support of her submission HMRC v Hok Ltd [2012] BTC 1711 and Abdul Noor v HMRC [2013] UKUT 071 (TCC) in which the Upper Tribunal confirmed that the First-tier tribunal has no such jurisdiction.[27]I agree with Ms Abolude that this Tribunal has no jurisdiction in relation to HMRC’s internal processes leading to issue of the assessment. The Appellant’s recourse here is to judicial review and he has already begun that process by making his formal complaint to HMRC. The Tribunal does have jurisdiction (pursuant to s 83(1)(1)(a) VATA) to review HMRC’s actual decision on registration but that is not in issue in this appeal as the Appellant has accepted that he made supplies exceeding the VAT registration threshold and that the factual requirements for registration are met.[28]In terms of the Appellant’s appeal against the assessment, Ms Abolude referred to s 83(1)(p)(i) VATA which provides that an appeal may be made in respect of a period for which a return has been made (my emphasis).[29]In this case the Appellant has not made a return – the VAT assessed is based instead on an HMRC estimate. Again, I agree with Ms Abolude that no appeal is possible until a return has been made by the Appellant. The Appellant’s appeal cannot therefore succeed.

Conclusion

[30]For the reasons given above I grant the strike out application and declare that the Appellant’s appeal is struck out pursuant to Rules 8(2)(a) and 8(3)(c).

Right to apply for permission to appeal

[31]This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice. Release date: 17th DECEMBER 2025