Andy Irons Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

This is an application by the Respondents ("HMRC") to strike out the appeal of Andy Irons Ltd ("the Appellant") under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) 2009 ("the Tribunal Rules") on the basis that this Tribunal does not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal.

HMRC contend that the Appellant did not give written notice of appeal to HMRC as required by s. 49D of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA”) but instead gave notice of appeal only to the Tribunal. HMRC argue that as the statutory requirements for notifying an appeal to the Tribunal have not been satisfied as the Appellant has failed to follow the procedure set out in the relevant legislation, the appeal must be struck out.

Under Rule 8 of the Tribunal Rules, subsection (2) reads as follows:

Section 31 TMA 1970 provides for rights of appeal against, among other things, determinations issued under Regulation 80 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations (SI 2003/2682) and s. 8 TMA decisions.

Section 31A(1) TMA 1970 provides that notice of an appeal under s. 31 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 assessment or determination, and the notice of appeal must specify the grounds of appeal.

Section 49D TMA 1970 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 s. 49D(1) TMA 1970, 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 (s. 31 TMA 1970) and the notice of appeal must be given to the relevant officer of the Board i.e. the officer who issued the Decision (s.31A TMA 1970).

On 28 February 2025, HMRC issued decisions to the Appellant under Regulation 80 of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations (SI 2003/2682) and s.8 TMA for the 2020/21 tax year.

On 9 April 2025, HMRC were notified of an appeal submitted on 16 March 2025 in relation to the Appellant. The representative named in the Notice of Appeal was Henry Mayhew of RPC Legal.

HMRC noted that the Notice of Appeal referred to the 2018/19 tax year but had been submitted with a copy of a decision notice dated 28 February 2025 for the 2020/21 tax year. Therefore, on 14 April 2025, HMRC contacted Henry Mayhew of RPC Legal seeking confirmation of the tax year under appeal and the decision being appealed. HMRC received an automatic response the same day stating: “Thank you for your email. I am currently away on secondment and will only have access to emails intermittently.”

On 15 April 2025, HMRC received a response from Tom Holden of RPC Legal advising that Henry Mayhew was no longer a member of their team. Mr Holden further advised that RPC Legal was not responsible for submitting the appeal to the Tribunal and that HMRC’s email of 14 April 2025 had been forwarded to the Appellant.

On 9 May 2025, HMRC emailed the Appellant directly. HMRC explained that they had been informed that Henry Mayhew was no longer acting and requested confirmation of who was representing the Appellant in the Tribunal appeal. HMRC also requested clarification of the tax year under appeal, the decision being appealed and whether any appeal had first been submitted to HMRC prior to the appeal being made to the Tribunal.

On 9 May 2025, RPC Legal responded to HMRC’s email dated 8 May 2025 to advise that the Appellant was discussing HMRC’s correspondence with their accountant and would revert shortly.

 On 14 May 2025, HMRC received correspondence from Graham Woolmore of GWAS Limited, the Appellant’s accountant, who was authorised with HMRC but not with the Tribunal.

 In that correspondence, GWAS Limited stated that they had not been involved in any appeals, as these had been made by a third party. They sought confirmation of the decisions issued and appealed to HMRC (on the basis that they understood their client had appealed all decisions) and confirmation as to whether any such appeals had been reviewed by HMRC.

 On 20 May 2025, HMRC replied to GWAS Limited confirming that Regulation 80 and s.8 decisions had been issued for the 2018/19, 2019/20 and 2020/21 tax years. HMRC confirmed that appeals had been received in relation to the 2018/19 and 2019/20 decisions, but had not yet been considered, and that no appeal had been received in respect of the 2020/21 decisions.HMRC explained that, as GWAS Limited was not authorised as the Appellant’s representative before the Tribunal, they were unable to provide further details of the Tribunal proceedings.

 On 20 May 2025, HMRC also wrote again to the Appellant seeking clarification as to who was representing them in the Tribunal proceedings and who was responsible for lodging the appeal. This was due to RPC Legal and GWAS Limited both stating that the appeal was either made by a third party, or that they were not party to the appeal. As a result, HMRC were also unclear whether the grounds contained in the Notice of Appeal were grounds relied upon by the Appellant.

 HMRC provided details of how the Appellant might authorise a non-legal representative, explaining that, if the Appellant wished HMRC to liaise with GWAS Limited in relation to the Tribunal appeal, steps would need to be taken to authorise them.

On 22 May 2025, HMRC filed an application to the Tribunal for further and better particulars. The application was made on the basis that the Notice of Appeal lacked clarity, as it referred to the 2018/19 tax year, whereas the document uploaded with the appeal was a copy of Regulation 80 and s.8 decisions dated 28 February 2025 for the 2020/21 tax year. The application was re-filed on 5 June 2025 due to an incorrect Tribunal reference number in the subject line of the original email.

The application was sent directly to the Appellant, as HMRC were still seeking to identify who, if anyone, was representing the Appellant in the proceedings.

On 25 June 2025, RPC Legal provided a response to HMRC’s application. In that response, RPC Legal confirmed that the only decisions under appeal were the Regulation 80 and s.8 decisions issued on 28 February 2025 for the 2020/21 tax year. Grounds of appeal were provided, and RPC Legal confirmed that they were acting as the Appellant’s representative in the appeal.

On 2 July 2025, HMRC confirmed to RPC Legal and to the Tribunal that the clarification provided on 25 June 2025 was sufficient. HMRC advised that they would consider the appeal and provide their response by 24 August 2025.

On 2 July 2025, RPC applied for the present appeal to be stayed, pending the selection of lead appeals in the Procorre-related cases 

On 18 July 2025, HMRC applied to strike out the appeal on the basis that they had no record of an appeal having been made to HMRC in respect of the decisions dated 28 February 2025 for the 2020/21 tax year. In the same application, HMRC objected to the Appellant’s request for a stay.

On 24 July 2025, RPC Legal wrote to the Tribunal confirming that they no longer acted for the Appellant.

On 7 August 2025, the Tribunal wrote directly to the Appellant seeking its representations on HMRC’s strike-out application within 14 days. A chaser letter was sent on 15 October 2025 requesting representations within a further 14 days

On 26 November 2025, the Tribunal issued directions that unless the Appellant provided representations by 10 December 2025, the proceedings would be struck out without further reference to the parties.

On 10 December 2025, the Tribunal received a response from GWAS Limited. In that letter GWAS Limited confirmed that the appeal had not been lodged with HMRC prior to the appeal being submitted to the Tribunal. The letter stated: “We are aware that the original appeal for 2020-2021 should have been with HMRC by 30 March 2025 but due to the confusion of a number of firms being involved with the case this did not happen, and the appeal arrived late. However, HMRC have had a copy of the appeal since 18 July 2025.”

HMRC provided further representations on 26 January 2026 noting the Appellant’s response that the appeal had not been made to HMRC by the deadline.

HMRC submits that s. 31A TMA 1970 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 1970 states that the Appellant may notify the appeal to the Tribunal. However s. 49D(1) TMA 1970 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.

On 9 March 2026, GWAS Limited wrote to the Tribunal objecting to the appeal being struck out on the grounds that the Appellant was still in the process of appealing against HMRC’s rejection for permission to make a late appeal.

The present Tribunal decision does not engage with, nor determine, any application for permission to make a late appeal that the Appellant may make to this Tribunal.

The basis of HMRC’s application for the appeal to be struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Rules is that no appeal has been notified to HMRC prior to being lodged with the Tribunal, as required by s. 49D TMA.

I have considered the issues and it is clear that the Appellant did not notify HMRC prior to lodging the appeal with the Tribunal.

The application falls to be determined by reference to the requirements of s. 31A and 49D of TMA 1970, in terms of notifying HMRC, which is a question of law.

In FlashFilmTransportLtdvHMRC

Section 31A TMA 1970 is headed "Appeals: notice of appeal" and sets out the requirements for making an appeal. In relation to appeals made "under s. 31" it provides that notice of an appeal under s. 31 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, s. 31A TMA 1970 cannot be met by notifying an appeal to the Tribunal without first having notified HMRC.

Section 49D TMA 1970 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 s. 31A.

Giving the words of the statute their ordinary meaning, the procedural options set out in s. 49D(2) TMA 1970— 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 its appeal in writing to HMRC as required by s. 49D(1) TMA 1970 prior to notifying the Tribunal and in those circumstances the Tribunal has no jurisdiction and HMRC’s application must be allowed.

The appeal is struck out under Rule 8(2)(a) of the Tribunal Rules.

As the appeal is struck out for want of jurisdiction, it is unnecessary to consider the application for a stay submitted on behalf of the Appellant on 2 July 2025.

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.