Foulser v HMRC: Where is my remedy? | AccountingWEB

Foulser v HMRC: Where is my remedy?

Allegations of “abuse of process” in tax cases are rare but came up in a recent Upper Tribunal decision, explains John Flood.

Foulser & Another v HMRC [2013] UKUT 33 provides important guidance on the “fairness” and “supervisory” jurisdiction of the tribunals and helps practitioners avoid procedural traps.

The general doctrine of abuse usually takes one of four forms:

  1. Allegations that a person cannot get a fair trial, e.g. because of inordinate delay or defective disclosure
  2. Suggestion that the conduct of the state has been of a such a reprehensible nature that it should not be allowed to continue with the litigation
  3. Abuse of trying to re-litigate something already decided (Res Judicata)
  4. Misconduct during the course of litigation such as the suppression of evidence or witness threats

The first two categories are considered in this case, where the Foulsers had a long running tax dispute.


» Register now

The full article is available to registered AccountingWEB members only. To read the rest of this article you’ll need to login or register.

Registration is FREE and allows you to view all content, ask questions, comment and much more.