In some cases it is convenient to draw up a statement of facts
not in dispute with the taxpayer (or his representative). This will
allow facts to be agreed conveniently without dispute or cost. Bear
in mind that such a statement should be a statement of facts not in
dispute and not an agreed statement of facts. Where there is a
statement of facts not in dispute, evidence can be adduced of the
facts that are not agreed, whilst a an agreed statement of facts
comprises the entire factual matrix of the case.
In general, only statements of facts not in dispute should be
used and will often only be appropriate where the appeal turns
mainly on a question of law and the relevant facts are simple and
not in dispute. In such cases a statement of the facts is useful
because it avoids the need for formal evidence of them. It may be
sensible to obtain advice on the issue from either your RAU or the
HMRC Solicitor’s Office.
On the other hand, statements of facts not in dispute may be
undesirable where the appeal turns mainly on the facts and their
interpretation. If there is no witness present to give evidence on
the facts, there could be problems if the facts in the statement
have to be elaborated or supplemented. This is particularly
important in a major appeal where an appeal to the Courts is likely
to be made by the party who is unsuccessful before the
Commissioners (see
Reed v Nova Securities Ltd 59TC516).
When, having regard to the above, you are prepared to
consider a proposed facts not in dispute, you should examine it
carefully to ensure that it contains nothing which should not be
agreed on behalf of the HMRC. In particular, you must make sure it
only includes matters of pure fact
