R & E Goonesena v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 619 (TC)
C O’Donnell & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
26 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 587 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A couple missed a deadline to appeal a tax bill because they mistakenly thought their old lawyers were handling it. The judge understood their mistake, but said they should have checked, and it was too late to appeal now. The delay was too long, and it would be unfair to the tax office to make them deal with an old case.
Key Facts
- •Mr and Mrs O'Donnell purchased a property in London on September 11, 2009.
- •HMRC issued a discovery assessment for additional SDLT of £24,000 on September 6, 2011.
- •The O'Donnells initially engaged solicitors and tax advisors to handle the matter.
- •HMRC issued a 'View of the Matter' letter on May 27, 2022, concluding the SDLT was incorrect.
- •The 30-day appeal period expired, and HMRC deemed the matter settled.
- •The O'Donnells' late appeal was initially rejected by the Tribunal due to insufficient reasons for the delay.
Legal Principles
The Tribunal has discretion to allow late appeals against SDLT discovery assessments.
Paragraph 36G of Schedule 10 to Finance Act 2003 and Rule 20 of the FTT Rules
When considering late appeals, the Tribunal should follow a three-stage process outlined in *Denton* and consider the length of delay, reasons for delay, and all circumstances of the case, balancing prejudice to both parties.
*Martland v HMRC* [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
The merits of the underlying appeal should only be considered if they are exceptionally strong or weak.
*Hysaj*
Shortage of funds or self-representation is generally not a sufficient reason for a late appeal.
*Hysaj*
Outcomes
The O'Donnells' application for permission to notify the appeal late was refused.
The Tribunal found the delay (over 3 months, even excluding periods awaiting responses) was serious and significant. While the O'Donnells genuinely believed their previous solicitors were acting, this belief was unreasonable given the clear instructions in the May 27, 2022 letter and the overall responsibility of the taxpayer for their tax affairs. The prejudice to HMRC in reopening a case they considered closed outweighed the prejudice to the O'Donnells.