(b) the nature of the evidence or submissions it requires (a) issues on which it requires evidence or submissions (1) Without restriction on the general powers in rule 5(1) and (2) (case management powers), the Tribunal may give directions as to Rule 15 of the Tribunal Rules deals with evidence and submissions and provides where relevant: (b) co-operate with the Tribunal generally.Ħ. (a) help the Tribunal to further the overriding objective and (b) interprets any rule or practice direction. (a) exercises any power under the Rules or (3) The Tribunal must seek to give effect to the overriding objective when it. (a) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the importance of the case, the complexity of the issues, the anticipated costs and resources of the parties (2) Dealing with a case fairly and justly includes. (1) The overriding objective of these Rules is to enable the Tribunal to deal with cases fairly and justly. Rule 2 of the Tribunal Rules provides for the overriding objective and parties obligation to co-operate with the Tribunal and provides where relevant: It is convenient at this point to set out the relevant provisions of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 ( the Tribunal Rules ).ĥ. The Appellants objected to the application on the following inter-related grounds: (i) HMRC had failed to follow the correct procedure/were premature in instructing Dr Godley (ii) the questions posed to Dr Godley are variously inappropriate, irrelevant or too vague and usurp the role of the Tribunal (iii) the equality of arms claim by HMRC does not arise (iv) HMRC has not established that Dr Godley has the necessary knowledge to answer and/or there is a reliable body of knowledge or experience to underpin his evidence on each of the questions raised there is a relevant area of expertise or that Dr Godley has relevant expertise (v) Dr Godley's report is not independent and impartial and (vi) the majority of Dr Godley's report is irrelevant or unnecessary for the resolution of the issues in the appeal.Ĥ. HMRC argue that Dr Godley's report addresses matters that are likely to be central to the determination of the appeal and are matters of a complex, technical and scientific nature.ģ. HMRC submit that it is necessary for the report to be admitted to reply to the witness evidence and exhibits of Mr Ian Martin, the general manager of FCC, as his evidence and exhibits address in detail the technical processes of the production of the FCC and Cristal waste, their chemical composition, the production and chemical composition of Air Pollution Control Residue ( APCr ) waste, a comparison of the FCC and Cristal waste chemical composition and comments on the regulatory regime for LT. The expert evidence, which is the subject of HMRC's application, is a report dated 9 July 2020 by Dr Andrew Godley, a Principal Consultant in the Due Diligence group of the Waste and Resources Management business practice at Ricardo Energy and Environment. The issue in the appeal is whether the FCC waste received by SB from FCC falls within the definition of Group 6(i) and Note 9(a) of The Landfill Tax (Qualifying Material) Order 2011 ( QMO ) as calcium based reaction wastes from titanium dioxide production and could be accounted for at the lower rate of LT.Ģ. The waste is processed via one waste stream by FCC and via another stream by Cristal. Singleton Birch Limited ( SB ) is a landfill site operator and accepts waste from two businesses, FCC Environment Limited ( FCC ) and Cristal Pigment UK Limited ( Cristal ). The substantive appeal concerns the correct Landfill Tax ( LT ) treatment of certain waste ( the FCC waste ). This decision concerns the Respondents ( HMRC ) application for permission to admit expert evidence on matters concerning the classification of the waste in issue in the appeal. James Puzey, counsel, instructed by the General Counsel and Solicitor to HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondentsġ. As such, the hearing was held in public.Īkash Nawbatt QC, counsel, instructed by Stewarts LLP for the Appellants Prior notice of the hearing had been published on the gov.uk website together with information about how representatives of the media or members of the public could apply to join the hearing remotely in order to observe the proceedings. I was provided with a hearing bundle (234 pages), a supplementary bundle (325 pages), an authorities bundle (457 pages), Appellants Statement of Objections, Skeleton Argument and Supplemental Skeleton Argument and HMRC's Skeleton Argument and Speaking Note all in electronic format. A face to face hearing was not held due to the Covid-19 pandemic. With the consent of the parties the form of the hearing was a video hearing using the Tribunal video platform. The hearing took place on 1 December 2020.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |