The Tyre Company (NI) Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 461 (TC)
Ariston Development Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
29 August 2024
[2024] UKFTT 783 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company missed the deadline to appeal a tax bill. They tried to appeal late, but the judge said they waited too long and didn't have a good reason. Even though they used an accountant, it was still their fault for missing the deadline, so their late appeal was rejected.
Key Facts
- •Ariston Development Limited failed to appeal a £159,813 VAT assessment within the statutory 30-day period.
- •The appeal to the tribunal was made on 19 May 2023, two years and six months after the assessment.
- •The assessment arose from HMRC's view that payments received from Strode College constituted consideration for taxable supplies.
- •Ariston argued it was unaware of its appeal rights and initially pursued alternative dispute resolution (ADR).
- •HMRC argued the delay was significant and that Ariston had professional representation and should have met the deadline.
- •Ariston's accountant communicated with HMRC expressing disagreement with the assessment before the deadline expired
Legal Principles
The tribunal has discretion to grant permission for a late appeal under section 83G(6) Value Added Tax Act 1994.
Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 83G(1) and (6)
When considering late appeals, the tribunal should follow a three-stage process from *Denton*, considering the length of delay, reasons for the delay, and all circumstances including prejudice to both parties. The need for efficient litigation and respecting statutory time limits are important factors.
Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
In considering late appeals, the need for efficient litigation and proportionate cost and compliance with directions must be given particular weight.
HMRC v BMW Shipping Agents [2021] UKUT 0091
Failings by a taxpayer's advisor are treated as failures by the taxpayer.
HMRC v Katib [2019] UKUT 0189
Outcomes
The tribunal refused Ariston's application for permission to appeal out of time.
The significant delay (two years and six months) was not justified by the reasons given. The tribunal found Ariston's explanation for the delay unconvincing and considered the accountant's failure to file a timely appeal attributable to Ariston. The tribunal balanced the prejudice to Ariston against the need for efficient litigation and upholding statutory time limits, ultimately finding the former insufficient to outweigh the latter.