0
The Court of Appeal has refused a taxpayer permission to appeal the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) – Chifley Holdings Ltd (BVI) v HMRC [2024] UKUT 00301 (LC) - in which it dealt for the first time with the valuation of a multi-million-pound West End London home for the purposes of the Annual Tax on Enveloped Dwellings (ATED).
The primary ground of appeal alleged that the Upper Tribunal judge had unfairly criticised the taxpayer’s expert witness without giving him the right of reply during the appeal process, relying on the case of TUI UK Ltd v Griffiths [2023] UKSC 48.
The Court of Appeal agreed with HMRC’s submission that the judge had been entitled to make the criticisms he did and that there no right of reply was required. The case of TUI dealt with the well-established principle that the evidence of a witness during a hearing must be considered uncontroverted unless challenged in cross-examination. In the instant appeal, the Upper Tribunal was dealing with the written representations procedure and the evidence of the taxpayer’s expert had been challenged throughout by HMRC’s own expert witness. There was therefore no procedural unfairness in the matter.
The Court of Appeal also rejected a challenge to the judge’s approach to the valuation exercise itself, particularly his treatment of post-date comparators, stating that it reflected the current case law.
A link to the Court of Appeal’s order refusing permission can be found here.
A link to the Upper Tribunal’s decision can be found here.
Katharine Elliot acted for HMRC before the Upper Tribunal and in responding to the permission to appeal application.
