Jason Nicholas James v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 661 (TC)
Charles Caton v The Commissioners for HMRC
9 May 2024
[2024] UKFTT 374 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone owed a lot of tax money and was very late appealing penalties. They said a tax officer told them their appeal was hopeless, but the officer said that didn't happen. Because there was no proof of the conversation, the judge said they missed their chance to appeal.
Key Facts
- •Appellant applied for permission to make a late appeal against penalty assessments totaling nearly £700,000.
- •Penalties relate to underpaid VAT and corporation tax due from a company controlled by the appellant.
- •HMRC assessed the company and the appellant for unpaid taxes and penalties, alleging deliberate non-compliance.
- •The appeal was made three years and eight months late.
- •The appellant claimed he had a telephone conversation with an HMRC officer who dismissed his appeal grounds, leading to his delay in appealing.
- •HMRC denied the telephone conversation took place.
Legal Principles
Principles for granting permission to appeal out of time.
Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Section 455 tax liability for close companies making loans to participators.
Corporation Tax Act 2010
Company penalty liability for inaccurate tax returns due to careless or deliberate behavior.
Not specified in the document, but implied.
Personal liability for company penalties attributable to an officer's deliberate inaccuracy.
Not specified in the document, but implied.
Definition of "deliberate" inaccuracy requiring intent to mislead HMRC.
Not specified in the document, but implied.
Civil evasion penalty for dishonest tax evasion by a company and its directors.
Not specified in the document, but implied.
Outcomes
Application to make a late appeal dismissed.
The Tribunal found the delay was serious and significant, and the appellant's reasons for the delay were not meritorious. The Tribunal did not find the appellant's evidence of a crucial phone conversation with an HMRC officer to be reliable, given contradictory evidence and lack of corroborating documentation.