This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our privacy notice.

Tribunal did not have jurisdiction to consider applications that documents were privileged communications

By Mark McLaughlin, February 2025

Applications were not made by the taxpayer, third party or someone acting on their behalf in accordance with regulations, so the tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to determine the applications, which were therefore struck out. 

HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) issued third-party information notices (under FA 2008, Sch 36, para 2) to solicitors (N) and a company (C). N and C claimed legal professional privilege (LPP) over certain documents. The claims for LPP were rejected by HMRC. The appellant company applied (under the Information Notice: Resolution of Disputes as to Privileged Communications Regulations 2009, SI 2009/1916, reg 5(5)) for the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) to consider and resolve the dispute. However, HMRC contended that the appellant did not have standing to make the application and called into question the FTT’s jurisdiction in relation to them. 

It was common ground that, having received information notices under FA

Subscribe to the McLaughlin’s Tax Case Library to get instant access
to the Tax Case Library.
14 day free trial , 90 day money back guarantee
Subscribe

Related or similar articles

Expenditure was not subsidised and was not incurred in activities contracted out to the company
By Mark McLaughlin, January 2025
Contractors could claim non-liability for CIS amounts not deducted from payments to subcontractor
By Mark McLaughlin, August 2024
Documents requested in HMRC information notice were subject to legal professional privilege
By Mark McLaughlin, May 2023
Computer and clerical error were not reasonable excuses for the late filing of a corporation tax return
By Mark McLaughlin, December 2022
Discovery assessment invalid as a hypothetical HMRC officer should have been aware of an insufficiency of tax
By Mark McLaughlin, June 2021