Anthony Smith v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 702 (TC)
Julian Edwards v The Commissioners for HMRC
27 March 2024
[2024] UKFTT 279 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone's tax appeal was thrown out because they didn't follow the rules and didn't give any reasons why they disagreed with the tax bill. The judge said they had many chances to fix this but didn't, and the appeal was too weak to bother reinstating.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against closure notice (related to a marketed tax avoidance scheme resulting in an additional £500,000 tax charge) was received four months and eleven days late.
- •No grounds of appeal were initially provided.
- •Appellant consistently failed to comply with Tribunal directions, including repeatedly failing to return a Video Hearing Attendance Form.
- •An Unless Order was issued and ignored, leading to the appeal being automatically struck out.
- •Appellant applied for reinstatement, citing personal pressures, reliance on accountants, and poor mental health.
- •Appellant failed to provide requested medical evidence or grounds of appeal even after further directions from the Tribunal.
Legal Principles
Three-stage approach for reinstatement applications following an Unless Order (adapted from Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) and refined in Chappell v The Pension Regulator [2019] UKUT 209 (TCC) and Breen v HMRC [2023] UKUT 00252 (TCC)).
Chappell v The Pension Regulator [2019] UKUT 209 (TCC), Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC), Breen v HMRC [2023] UKUT 00252 (TCC)
Merits of the appeal are generally irrelevant in reinstatement applications unless the case is so weak that it would be struck out summarily (Global Torch principle).
HRH Prince Addulaziz Bin Mishal Bin Abdulaziz Al Saud v Apex Global Management Limited [2014] UKSC 64
Litigants are generally held responsible for the actions of their representatives.
Hytec Information Systems v Coventry City Council [1997] 1 WLR 666, HMRC v Katib [2019] UKUT 0189 (TCC)
Medical evidence is usually required to support claims of illness impacting compliance.
Banerjee v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0085 (TC)
Outcomes
Reinstatement application refused.
Appellant's breaches were serious and significant, reasons for non-compliance were inadequate, appeal had extremely limited chances of success due to lack of grounds, and prejudice to HMRC and other users outweighed any prejudice to the Appellant.