Hosie v Revenue and Customs (Application for permission to appeal) [2025] UKUT 432 (TCC) (30 December 2025)

Executive summary

The Upper Tribunal heard Mr Derek Hosie’s renewed application for permission to appeal against an FTT decision about reinstating an appeal that he had previously withdrawn. The Tribunal explained the statutory permission-to-appeal test, focused on whether the FTT had arguably erred in law on jurisdiction to extend time after withdrawal, and held that much of Mr Hosie’s fraud-based and authorities-based argument did not bear on the FTT’s actual jurisdictional decision.

Key points

• Applicant: Derek Hosie; respondent: HMRC Commissioners
• Underlying FTT case concerned a closure notice and repayment following a false EIS relief claim in Mr Hosie’s 2016/17 self-assessment return
• FTT had refused to reinstate the withdrawn appeal, holding it lacked jurisdiction because the reinstatement application was out of time under s54(4) TMA 1970
• Upper Tribunal had previously granted permission on one jurisdictional ground but refused the rest; this hearing was a renewal after oral argument
• Judge Zaman said many cited fraud authorities and maxims were not helpful because the Former Agent was not a party and no tribunal had made findings on Mr Hosie’s own allegations
• No sanctions, export-control, or national-security issue appears in the decision text

Why it matters

The case matters primarily for procedural risk: it shows how statutory time limits and tribunal jurisdiction can block merits review even where a litigant alleges fraud. For sanctions and geopolitical intelligence audiences, it has no direct sanctions content, but it illustrates the rigidity of UK tax-tribunal process where compliance and litigation outcomes can turn on jurisdictional finality rather than substantive equities.

Implications

For compliance and enforcement, the decision reinforces that a withdrawn tax appeal may not be revived once the statutory deadline has passed if the tribunal concludes it lacks jurisdiction to extend time. For litigation strategy, it underscores the importance of preserving appeals, acting promptly on reinstatement applications, and tailoring fraud arguments to the exact procedural question the tribunal must decide rather than to the underlying merits alone.