Stephen Ray v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 141 (TC)
Graeme Wardrop v The Commissioners for HMRC
28 February 2024
[2024] UKFTT 178 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone didn't appeal a tax bill on time because of a tough life situation. The court said even though he had good points, he waited too long to appeal and refused his request. The court stressed it's crucial to appeal tax bills within the given time, even if you're going through hard times.
Key Facts
- •The appellant, Graeme Wardrop, applied for permission to appeal late against two discovery assessments issued by HMRC on 29 March 2019 for tax years 2015/16 and 2016/17.
- •The assessments related to invalid EIS claims, allegedly due to fraud perpetrated by Mr. Richard Hall of Capital Allowances Consultants Ltd.
- •The appellant's delay in appealing was three years, five months, and 30 days.
- •The appellant claimed his mental health suffered due to the situation, including marital breakdown and financial difficulties leading to a trust deed.
- •The appellant argued that the assessments were invalid, citing recent cases (Robson, McCumiskey, Huntly) involving similar circumstances and Richard Hall.
Legal Principles
Approach to late appeal applications
Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Three-stage process for considering late appeals (Denton): 1) Length of delay; 2) Reason for delay; 3) All circumstances of the case.
Denton, implicitly endorsed in Martland
Importance of efficient litigation, proportionate costs, and respect for statutory time limits.
Martland
Shortage of funds or self-representation is generally not a reasonable excuse for delay.
Hysaj (as cited in Martland)
A new authority prompting a late appeal may have some weight, but is not a good reason for not appealing in time.
Moore v HMRC [2022] UKFTT 411 (TC)
Outcomes
Application for permission to appeal late refused.
The Tribunal found the delay to be exceptionally long and that the appellant’s reasons (mental health issues, financial difficulties) did not constitute a reasonable excuse, especially considering his continued employment and handling of other life matters. The Tribunal also found the appellant's reliance on similar cases was not sufficient, as the facts differed and the time limits should be respected.