Key Facts
- •Appeal against late filing penalties (£1300) under Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009 for the 2021-2022 tax year.
- •Appeal was filed late.
- •Appellant did not attend the hearing.
- •Appellant claimed unawareness of self-assessment obligations and difficulties with online registration.
- •HMRC argued appellant was aware of obligations and provided opportunities to file a paper return.
- •Appellant's tax return was received significantly late (December 2023).
Legal Principles
Late filing penalties under Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009.
Schedule 55 Finance Act 2009
Obligation to file tax return under Section 8 Taxes Management Act 1970.
Section 8 Taxes Management Act 1970
Service of documents under Section 115 TMA 1970 and Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978.
Section 115 TMA 1970; Section 7 Interpretation Act 1978
Evidence of service requirements from *HMRC v Nigel Rogers and Craig Shaw* and *Barry Edwards v HMRC*.
*HMRC v Nigel Rogers and Craig Shaw* [2019] UKUT 0406; *Barry Edwards v HMRC* [2019] UKUT 131
Notification of penalty requirements from *Donaldson v HMRC* [2016] EWCA Civ 761.
*Donaldson v HMRC* [2016] EWCA Civ 761
Reasonable excuse test from *Clean Car Co Ltd v C&E Commissioners* [1991] VATTR 234 and *Nigel Barrett [2015] UKFTT 0329*.
*Clean Car Co Ltd v C&E Commissioners* [1991] VATTR 234; *Nigel Barrett [2015] UKFTT 0329*
Special circumstances test from *Edwards*.
*Edwards*
Late appeal principles from *Martland v HMRC* [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) and *HMRC v BMW Shipping Agents* [2021] UKUT 0091.
*Martland v HMRC* [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC); *HMRC v BMW Shipping Agents* [2021] UKUT 0091
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for late filing or special circumstances. The Tribunal found that HMRC had properly served notices and that the appellant's reasons for late filing were insufficient.
Application to bring a late appeal refused.
Significant delay in filing the appeal, lack of justification for the delay, and the lack of merit in the substantive appeal.