Stefan-Valentin Moscal v The Commissioners for HMRC
Neutral Citation: [2026] UKFTT 00640 (TC)
Case Number: TC 09862
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
Location: Decided on the papers
Appeal reference: TC/2025/03945
PROCEDURE – application for strike out – jurisdiction – requirement to notify HMRC
Judgment date: 29 April 2026
Decided by:
Between
STEFAN-VALENTIN MOSCAL
Appellant
and
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HIS MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS
Respondents
The Tribunal determined the appeal on 16 April 2026 without a hearing under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (default paper cases) having first read the Notice of Appeal dated 10 October 2025 and HMRC’s application to strike out dated 5 February 2026.
DECISION
Introduction
This is an application by the Respondents ("HMRC") to strike out the appeal of Stefan-Valentin Moscal ("the Appellant") under:
Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) 2009 ("the FTT Rules") on the basis that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal and/or
Rule 8(3)(c) of the FTT Rules on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case, or part of it, succeeding.
HMRC contend that the Appellant failed to give written notice of appeal to HMRC as required by s49D of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA”), and instead notified the appeal only to the Tribunal. As the statutory preconditions for notifying an appeal to the Tribunal were not satisfied, HMRC submit that the appeal must be struck out.
In the alternative HMRC contend that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding. This contention is made on the basis that the Appellant has accepted that his expenses were overstated and submitted revised claims that were accepted by HMRC. The Appellant alleges fraud on behalf of his former agent. HMRC submits that this is not a valid ground of appeal.
relevant law
Rule 8 of the FTT Rules relevantly states:
The Tribunal must strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if the Tribunal—
does not have jurisdiction in relation to the proceedings or that part of them; and
does not exercise its power under rule 5(3)(k)(i) (transfer to another court or tribunal) in relation to the proceedings or that part of them.
The Tribunal may strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings if—
the Tribunal considers there is no reasonable prospect of the appellant's case, or part of it, succeeding.
The Tribunal may not strike out the whole or a part of the proceedings under paragraphs (2) or (3)(b) or (c) without first giving the appellant an opportunity to make representations in relation to the proposed striking out.
Section 31 TMA provides for rights of appeal against, among other things, closure notices under s28A and assessments issued under s29.
Section 31A(1) TMA provides that notice of an appeal under s31 must be given in writing, within 30 days of the specified date, and to the relevant officer of HMRC. The specified date is the date of issue of the closure notice or assessment, and the notice of appeal must specify the grounds of appeal.
Section 49D TMA provides that an appellant may notify an appeal to the Tribunal only where notice of appeal has first been given to HMRC:
By virtue of section 49D(1) TMA, a person can only notify an appeal to the Tribunal if a notice of appeal has been given to HMRC. The appeal must be in writing (section 31 TMA) and the notice of appeal must be given to the relevant officer of the Board i.e. the officer who issued the Decision (section 31A TMA). For these purposes, the “specified date” is the date on which the closure notice or notice of assessment was issued.
Facts and submissions
On 16 September 2025, HMRC issued notice of assessment to the Appellant in respect the tax year ended 5 April 2021. This assessment was issued pursuant to section 29 TMA.
On the same day HMRC issued closure notices to the Appellant in respect of the tax years ended 5 April 2022, 5 April 2023, and 5 April 2024. The closure notices were issued pursuant to section 28A(1B) and (2) TMA. The closure notices included an explanation of the next steps and set out the procedure of appealing first to HMRC and then to the Tribunal.
On 10 October 2025, the Appellant filed a Notice of Appeal with the Tribunal in respect of the assessment for the tax year ended 5 April 2021 and the closure notices for the tax years ended 5 Apil 2022, 5 April 2023 and 5 April 2024. Appended to the Notice of Appeal was a copy of a letter addressed to HMRC, dated 11 October 2025. HMRC submit that they have no record of having received the Appellant’s letter of 11 October 2025.
On 5 February 2026, HMRC filed the application to strike out the appeals. On the same day HMRC sent a letter to the Appellant explaining that it would be applying for strike out because the Appellant appealed directly to the Tribunal first, instead of to HMRC. In that letter HMRC wrote ‘If your Appeal is struck out by the Tribunal, then you may wish to submit a request for a late appeal to HMRC’.
On 18 February 2026, the Tribunal sent a letter to the Appellant providing him with the opportunity to make submissions in response to HMRC’s application, such submissions to be received by 4 March 2026. The Appellant did not provide any submissions.
Appellant’s submissions in Notice of Appeal
The Appellant submits that he was ‘scammed’ by his former agent, Vlad LD Business Limited, who overinflated his expenses in his tax returns in order to justify their commissions. He further submits that he was presented with the overinflated figures by his former agent and was reassured that they were correct and that he was entitled to the expenses.
The Appellant admits that the figures in his self-assessment tax return were incorrect, but states that he does not want to ‘get penalties’ due to the behaviour of his former agent.
HMRC’s submissions
HMRC submits that s31A TMA states that a notice of appeal must be given in writing, within 30 days after the specified date and to the relevant officer of the Board. The specified date in this case is the date on which the closure notices and assessment were issued.
Section 49D(2) TMA states that the Appellant may notify the appeal to the Tribunal. However s49D(1) TMA states this section applies if notice of the appeal has been given to HMRC.
HMRC contend that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to determine the appeal, as no notice of appeal was given to HMRC in the first instance, as per the legislation. HMRC submit that they have no record of having received the Appellant’s letter dated 11 October 2025, which was appended to the Notice of Appeal dated 10 October 2025. HMRC therefore submit that the appeal must be struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the FTT Rules.
In the alternative, HMRC submit that the appeal must be struck out under Rule 8(3)(c) of the FTT Rules on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding. HMRC submits that the Appellant’s allegation of fraud against his former agent is not a valid ground of appeal.
HMRC submits that the Appellant has accepted that his expenses were overstated and has submitted revised claims which were accepted by HMRC.
discussion
Strike out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the FTT Rules
The basis of HMRC’s application for the appeal to be struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the FTT Rules is that no appeal has been notified to HMRC prior to being lodged with the Tribunal, as required by s49D TMA.
I have considered the (postdated) letter appended to the Notice of Appeal and addressed to HMRC. I have concluded that there is no evidence in the documents that I have seen that this letter was submitted to HMRC prior to the Notice of Appeal being lodged with the Tribunal. Indeed the letter is dated the day after the Notice of Appeal was lodged.
HMRC’s application falls to be determined by reference to the requirements of s31A and s49D of TMA, in terms of notifying HMRC, which is a question of law.
I therefore considered whether HMRC were able, as a matter of law, to treat a direct tax appeal made to the Tribunal as if it had been made to HMRC, so that the Tribunal has the necessary jurisdiction to decide the dispute. In Patel v HMRC
"...it is not open for HMRC to dispense with the requirement that it must serve a notice under s.8(1) in order for a taxpayer's return to be a return 'under s.8'. This is an express statutory requirement that cannot be waived by the exercise of HMRC's discretion."
In my view, the position is the same in relation to TMA s 49D, which provides that an appellant can only notify his appeal to the Tribunal if he has first appealed to HMRC. HMRC's care and management powers do not allow them to override that statutory requirement, and itfollowsthattheTribunalhasnojurisdictiontodecideadirecttaxappeal,unlessithasfirstbeenmadetoHMRC.
The same conclusion has previously been reached in other Tribunal judgments, see Fiorini v HMRC
"...HMRC must be asked to agree to a late appeal before any question of applying to the tribunal for permission can arise. That is for the (perhaps obvious) reason that any tribunal would wish to know, before considering whether to grant permission for a late appeal, the view of HMRC about the reasonableness of the excuse for not giving notice before the 30 days had expired."
There are also other reasons why appeals have to be madefirst to HMRC: the Officer receiving the appeal may consider the reasons and change his position, and the appellant has the opportunity to ask for, or accept, a statutory review carried out by a different HMRC Officer. Appeals made first to HMRC may thus be settled between the parties without reference to the Tribunal."
(emphasis added)
Section 31A TMA is headed "Appeals: notice of appeal" and sets out the requirements for making an appeal. In relation to appeals made "under section 31" it provides that notice of an appeal under s31 must be given in writing, within 30 days after the issue of the closure notice or making of the assessment and to the relevant officer of the board. In my view, for the reasons set out below, s31A TMA cannot be met by notifying an appeal to the Tribunal without first having notified HMRC.
Section 49D TMA is expressly engaged only where notice of appeal has already been given to HMRC. Its provisions are therefore predicated on an appeal having first been notified to HMRC in accordance with s31A.
Giving the words of the statute their ordinary meaning, the procedural options set out in s49D(2) TMA— including the right to notify an appeal to the Tribunal — arise only once an appeal has been notified to HMRC. Those options are not available where no such notice has been given.
I therefore agree with the comments of Judge Redston in FlashFilm and find that the legislation provides that an appeal must be made to HMRC before an appeal can be notified to the Tribunal.
The Appellant did not notify his appeal in writing to HMRC as required by s 49D(1) TMA prior to notifying the Tribunal and in those circumstances the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and HMRC’s application must be allowed.
Strike out under Rule 8(3)(c) of the FTT Rules
Given my conclusion that the appeal must be struck out for want of jurisdiction under Rule 8(2)(a) of the FTT Rules, it is not necessary for me to determine HMRC’s alternative application. However, for completeness, I record my view on this issue. I do not agree with HMRC’s submission that the Tribunal must strike out the appeal under Rule 8(3)(c) of the FTT Rules on the basis that there is no reasonable prospect of the Appellant’s case succeeding. Rule 8(3)(c) confers a discretionary power on the Tribunal.
The Appellant accepts that the expenses included in his self-assessment returns for the relevant years were overstated and that the returns were incorrect when filed. HMRC submit, and it is not disputed, that amended figures were subsequently provided by the Appellant and that the assessment and closure notices issued by HMRC are based upon those corrected figures.
The Appellant’s principal contention is that the inaccuracies in his returns arose from the conduct of his former agent, whom he alleges acted fraudulently. Even if that allegation were accepted, it does not provide a basis on which the amounts of tax determined by HMRC could be displaced, where those amounts reflect figures which the Appellant himself accepts to be correct.
The Appellant submitted that he does not wish to incur penalties arising from the behaviour of his former agent. However, as far as I am aware, no appeal in relation to penalties is before the Tribunal. Accordingly, no findings are made in relation to penalties.
Had the Tribunal had jurisdiction to determine the appeal, I would have concluded, for the reasons set out above, that the Appellant’s case had no reasonable prospect of success.
Decision
For the reasons set out at paragraphs 21-29 above, the application is GRANTED and the appeal is STRUCK OUT under Rule 8(2)(a) of the FTT Rules.
Right to apply for permission to appeal
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:
29 April 2026