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 hear a legitimate expectation argument against the imposition of penalties

By Mark McLaughlin, June 2025

The appellant’s appeal was struck out as the First-tier Tribunal did not have the jurisdiction to consider whether there was a legitimate expectation that late payment penalties would be cancelled as the result of a “full and final” settlement entered into with HMRC. 

The appellant (MCL) had participated in a DOTAS (disclosure of tax avoidance schemes) registered ‘contractor solutions scheme’. MCL was issued with accelerated payment notices (APNs) for the tax years 2011/12 and 2012/13 by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC). Payment of the APNs was due by 13 September 2016. MCL made representations to challenge the APNs. However, the APNs were upheld by HMRC. MCL did not pay the APNs. Consequently, HMRC issued the appellant with a late payment penalty (LPP) in April 2017. In the absence of payment of the APNs by MCL, a second LPP was issued in September 2017 and a third LPP was issued in February 2018. 

MCL appealed to

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

Permission given for individual who was not the nominated partner in a partnership to make late appeal
By Mark McLaughlin, March 2026
Late notification appeal allowed after HMRC’s ‘nudge’ letter was not received
By Mark McLaughlin, June 2024
Taxpayer’s need to care for twin sister and her minor children at a time of crisis did not constitute exceptional circumstances
By Mark McLaughlin, October 2023
What is the ‘quality’ of residence?
By Meg Saksida, January 2023
Participant in tax avoidance scheme was the settlor of a settlement
By Mark McLaughlin, September 2020