ARTG4630 - Review of direct and indirect taxes decisions: carrying out a review: customer provides further information during the review

General
New information or arguments
Considering new information or arguments

General

A customer may accept the offer of a review and provide further information. Where they do provide further information during the review, including as part of the review request, the review officer should refer substantial new information back to the decision maker to consider.

The review officer should consider new information in the first instance only where it is limited in scope and consideration is likely to lead to a speedy conclusion. What is ‘substantial’ information depends on the particular case in question. For example a customer who provided all their business books and records during the review would have provided substantial new information.

New information or arguments

Where the customer provides new information or arguments during the review, the review officer should assess whether they need to agree a longer review period with the customer, to allow for full consideration of the information by the decision maker. If the appealable decision was issued by a decision maker following a decision by a Case Board or in accordance with a strategy set by an Issues Panel ARTG1020, the review officer should assess the time it will take for the decision maker to consider the new information, including time to allow resubmission to the Board or Panel.

The review officer, in their role as ringmaster, see ARTG4080, may need to consult other Departmental stakeholders in relation to the new information. For example, Valuation Office may need to be consulted about a property valuation. Where the appealable decision was issued by the decision maker following a decision by a Case Board or in accordance with a strategy set by an Issue Panel, the information should be referred back to the decision maker so they can liaise with the Case Board or Issues Panel secretariat about resubmitting the case. The reasons for referring the new information back to the decision maker for resubmission to the Case Board or Issues Panel should be carefully described and documented. If this is likely to take some time the review officer should seek to agree an extended time limit for the review.

Considering new information or arguments

If the new information provided by the customer has been referred to the decision maker to consider and they decide it is not sufficient to resolve the dispute, the decision maker should tell the customer in writing and refer the matter back to SOLS so that the review officer can carry out the review. The standard appeals wording should not be used when writing to the customer as there is no new appealable decision being made. 

But if the decision maker decides that the new information/argument changes their view of the original decision, then the following steps should be taken:  

Direct taxes 

If the information/argument is sufficient to resolve the dispute, whether by cancelling or varying the decision, the decision maker should seek to settle the appeal by agreement with the customer under S54 TMA 1970 (or relevant equivalents).  

Where the decision maker settles the case as a result of new information/argument being provided it is not necessary for the review officer to send a conclusion of review letter to the customer. The review officer should make a note on the necessary systems that the matter was settled by agreement. 

But if the customer does not agree to settle the case, then the decision maker should refer it back to the review officer to conclude the review. 

Indirect taxes 

For indirect taxes, if the information/evidence is sufficient to cancel the decision, then the decision maker should write to the customer and confirm the revised position, revisiting assessments etc as appropriate. In these circumstances it is not necessary for the review officer to send a conclusion of review letter to the customer and the review should be recorded as rejected on the relevant systems. 

However, for indirect taxes, if the decision maker decides the new information/evidence is sufficient to vary, but not cancel the decision, the decision maker should write the customer with the revised position, and the case should be referred back to the review officer to conclude the review, taking into account the decision maker’s revised view. The standard appeals wording should not be used when writing to the customer as there is no new appealable decision being made.