People Services Solution Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 786 (TC)
Meter Squared Ltd v The Commissioners For HMRC
1 October 2024
[2024] UKFTT 884 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company appealed late against tax bills. The judge decided some parts of the appeal could go ahead because the company had complained early on, even if not officially. But other parts were thrown out because the company waited too long to appeal.
Key Facts
- •Meter Squared Ltd (in liquidation) appealed late against VAT assessments issued by HMRC on 16 September 2019.
- •The appeal was lodged on 20 September 2022, nearly three years late.
- •The assessments covered periods 08/15, 05/16, 11/16 – 02/19.
- •HMRC encountered difficulties obtaining information during a compliance check.
- •The Appellant provided some information in February 2019 but significant delays followed.
- •Restated accounts were only provided in August 2022.
- •The Appellant entered liquidation on 7 October 2022.
- •The Tribunal applied the Martland test for late appeals.
Legal Principles
Martland test for late appeals: A three-stage test assessing the seriousness of the delay, the reason for the delay, and all circumstances to achieve a just outcome, with emphasis on efficient litigation and compliance with rules.
Martland v HM Revenue and Customs [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Acts and failures of a representative are generally attributed to the appellant unless exceptionally excused.
Muhammed Hafeez Kantib v HMRC [2019] UKUT 189 (TCC)
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Tribunal found that an October 2019 email, while not a formal review request, constituted a sufficient challenge to the assessments for periods 02/18-11/18 ('Allowed Periods'). The delay for these periods was deemed justifiable given the circumstances, and the appeal for them was allowed to proceed. However, the appeal for other periods ('Other Periods') was dismissed due to the significant and unjustified delay and the need to enforce time limits.
Application for further and better particulars granted (in part).
The grounds of appeal were initially insufficient, but considered adequate for the 'Allowed Periods' in conjunction with the October 2019 email. The Appellant was ordered to provide further details and evidence.