Key Facts
- •Appeal concerning the use of a tax avoidance scheme ('Excalibur') by the deceased, Kevin Fidler.
- •HMRC issued closure notices under section 28A and paragraph 7 Schedule 1A TMA.
- •Appellant (executor of Fidler's estate) appealed late, seeking admission of the late appeal and subsequently to strike it out.
- •The appeal related to a capital loss claim carried back to the 2005/06 tax year.
- •A letter sent by the appellant's representatives on 28 November 2022 was not initially processed as an appeal by the Tribunal.
- •The appeal was ultimately submitted on 13 July 2023.
- •The case hinges on the validity of the closure notice and the application of the Martland principles for admitting late appeals.
Legal Principles
Test for admitting late appeals, following Martland v HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC): Three-stage test assessing seriousness/significance of the delay, reason for delay, and all circumstances (giving particular weight to respecting statutory time limits and effective litigation).
Martland v HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Requirements for a valid notice of appeal under rule 20 Tribunal Rules.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Tribunal's jurisdiction to consider disputes is carefully scoped in statute (Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 and various taxing statutes). An appeal must be against a decision listed in a taxing statute, and the appeal must be received and admitted before considering the decision's validity or the Tribunal's jurisdiction.
Tribunal Courts and Enforcement Act 2007; various taxing statutes; Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Rule 8(2) Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 allows for striking out an appeal.
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Section 31A TMA allows appeal to HMRC.
Taxes Management Act 1970
Outcomes
Late appeal admitted.
The two-day delay was deemed not significant; a reasonable explanation for the delay (postal strike) existed; HMRC withdrew its objection; the prejudice to the Appellant outweighed any to HMRC; the Martland test was satisfied.
Strike-out application stayed.
The application was considered unusual and potentially prejudicial to the Appellant. A stay was agreed to allow clarification of HMRC's position in the related Murphy case.