SPC00516
	
	APPLICATION TO REVIEW AND SET ASIDE A DECISION UNDER 	REGULATION 19 OF THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS 	(JURISDICTION AND PROCEDURE) REGULATIONS 1994 – the 	Appellant submissions repeat his arguments considered at the Appeal 	hearing on 7 October – the Appellant has put forward no grounds for setting 	aside the decision – Application refused.

THE SPECIAL COMMISSIONERS

	PAUL LOW	Appellant

	- and -

	HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE and CUSTOMS	Respondents

			Special Commissioner:	MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE					

Sitting in public in London on 20 December 2005

The parties did not appear instead they made written representations

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005

DECISION
The Application
1.	The Appellant applied by letter dated 28 November 2005 to set aside the decision of the Special Commissioners reference number SC/3083/2005 released on 15 November 2005. In the decision I dismissed the Appellant’s Appeal against a Notice under section 19A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 dated 4 January 2005 requiring the Appellant to produce documents and specific information by 8 February 2005 for the purposes of determining whether the Appellant’s self assessment return for 2001/02 was incorrect or incomplete. 
2.	Under Regulation 19(4) of the Special Commissioners (Jurisdiction and Procedure) Regulations1994 (hereinafter known as the 1994 Regulations) the Office of Special Commissioners gave notice of hearing to hear the Appellant’s application on the 20 December. The notice was sent on 8 December 2005. I considered that it was important to deal with the application as a matter of urgency and that the notice on 8 December 2005 was sufficient for the parties to deal with the limited grounds upon which a decision can be set aside. There is no prescribed period of notice for a hearing under Regulation 19(4). The 28 day period of notice under Regulation 3 applies to requests to fix a date of hearing for a substantive Appeal. The 14 day period of notice under Regulation 9 applies to preliminary hearings. The periods of notice in Regulations  3 and 9 do not apply to hearings under Regulation 19 (4).  
3.	The notice sent on the 8 December 2005 sets out clearly the grounds upon which a decision can be set aside under Regulation 19(1) of the 1994 Regulations.
4.	The parties decided not to attend the hearing but to submit written representations. I decided to deal with the Appellant’s application in his absence under Regulation 16 of the 1994 Regulations because both parties have submitted written representations.
The Legislation
5.	 Regulation 19(1) of the 1994 Regulations states that
“If, on the application of a party or of its own motion, a Tribunal is satisfied that
a)	a decision in principle or the final determination was wrongly made as a result of an administrative error on the part of the Clerk or any of the staff of the Special Commissioners or a party, or
b)	a party who was entitled to be heard at a hearing but failed to appear or to be represented, had good and sufficient reason for failing to appear or to be represented, or
c)	accounts or other information relevant to a party’s case had been sent to the Clerk, or to the appropriate inspector or other officer of the Board prior to the hearing of the proceedings but had not been received by the Tribunal until after the hearing,
the Tribunal may review and set aside or vary the decision in principle or final determination (or both the decision in principle and the final determination).
The Written Representations of the Appellant
6.	In his letter of 28 November 2005 the Appellant set out three grounds upon which the decision should be set aside, namely:
(1)	He wished to introduce additional submissions about a serious complaint submitted by him regarding the conduct of an Office employed by HM Revenue and Customs.
(2)	He did not accept that my decision released on 15 November 2005  fairly and correctly ruled on his rights under Article 8 of the Human Rights Convention.
(3)	He believed that the actions of the Officer against whom he made a serious complaint has had an effect upon himself and wife which should be taken into account when considering whether the Respondents’ enquiry into his tax affairs were proportionate and fair.
7.	The Appellant sent in a further letter of 16 December 2005 where he provided further details of the serious complaint against the Officer.
The Written Representations of the Respondents
8.	The Respondents submitted in a fax dated 19 December 2005 that the Appellant has failed to establish any of the grounds under Regulation 19(1) of the 1994 Regulations to set aside the decision.  In any event the Appellant has not provided any further evidence or argument which was not considered at the hearing of the Appeal on 7 October 2005. The Kent Area Director dealt with the Appellant’s serious complaint referred to in his submissions of 28 November and 16 December 2005. The details of the complaint and its handling were before the Special Commissioner on the 7 October 2005. 
Decision
9.	The Appellant in his written submissions dated 28 November and 16 December 2005 has repeated his grounds of Appeal which were fully considered by me at the hearing on 7 October 2005 and set out in my decision released 15 November 2005.  The written submissions did not contain any new material or new argument.
10.	The Appellant has not addressed the grounds upon which a decision can be set aside under regulation 19(1) despite being told of the limited grounds in the notice dated 8 December 2005.
11.	The only possible ground that might have applied was that the Appellant failed to appear at the hearing on the 7 October 2005. However, the Appellant has failed to put forward any reason for not attending the hearing on 7 October 2005.
12.	 I gave a detailed explanation for dealing with the Appellant’s appeal in his absence in my decision released on 15 November, which is reproduced below from paragraphs 11,12 and 13 of that decision:
“On 6 October 2005 the Appellant sent a fax to the Office of Special Commissioners requesting an adjournment of the hearing on 7 October 2005. The Respondents opposed the Appellant’s application. His reasons for requesting an adjournment were that
~	He had recently made a formal and serious complaint to the Respondents regarding one of their Inspectors.
~	He intended to request copies of relevant correspondence and records under the Freedom of Information Act.
I refused the Appellant’s application because:
~	The Respondents met the Appellant’s request for disclosure under the Freedom of Information Act on 25 April 2005.
~	The Respondents’ Kent Area Office dealt with the Appellant’s complaint with its reply on 20 September 2005.
~	The hearing had been fixed since August 2005. 
~	The Appeal was ready for hearing. The Appellant had agreed the facts in dispute. The parties had exchanged skeleton arguments and document bundle.
~	The Appellant made no mention of his adjournment request when he contacted the Respondents on 3 October 2005.
~	The Appellant’s application, therefore, lacked merit and would add unnecessary delay with the hearing of the Appeal.
~	The Officer of Special Commissioners communicated with the parties advising them that the Appellant’s application had been refused and that the hearing would go ahead the following day.
The Appellant did not attend the hearing. I instructed the Office of Special Commissioners to contact the Appellant to enquire whether he was attending. He responded that he had already indicated in his fax the previous day that he would not attend the hearing. I, therefore, reconsidered his application for adjournment. I could find no reason to depart from my decision the previous day to refuse his adjournment. I granted the Respondents’ application to proceed in the Appellant’s absence, particularly as I was fully aware of the Appellant’s case from his correspondence in the agreed bundle and his skeleton argument”.
13.	 I refuse the Appellant’s application to set aside my decision released on 15 November because he has failed to satisfy me that any of the grounds under Regulation 19(1) of the 1994 Regulations apply.

14.	I remind the Appellant that my determination released on 15 November 2005 is final and conclusive in relation to the matters covered by the section 19A. Notice issued on 4 January 2005. There is no right of Appeal to the High Court.

MICHAEL TILDESLEY

SPECIAL COMMISSIONER
RELEASE DATE: 23 December 2005

SC/3083/2005

££Paul Low v Revenue and Customs [2005] UKSPC SPC00516 (23 December 2005)