P. R. B. Trading Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 421 (TC)
People Services Solution Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
22 September 2023
[2023] UKFTT 786 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A company's appeals against tax decisions were a bit late. The judge understood the company's boss was struggling with mental health problems, and because the case was complicated and involved a lot of money, she let the appeals go ahead.
Key Facts
- •People Services Solution Ltd. (PSS) appealed three late VAT assessments and a deregistration decision by HMRC.
- •The appeals were 15-16 days late.
- •Reasons for lateness included the appellant's director's mental health issues, alleged postal delays, and difficulties in securing professional representation due to a freezing order on the company's accounts.
- •HMRC argued the delays were serious and significant, while PSS argued they were neither.
- •The Tribunal considered medical evidence and the complexity of the case.
Legal Principles
Appeals must be made within 30 days of the decision.
Relevant legislation for each appeal
Late appeals may be permitted with Tribunal permission if a good reason exists.
Rule 20(4) of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Tribunal has power to grant permission to notify a late appeal.
Section 49 TMA and Section 49H TMA
Martland three-stage test for late appeals: (1) Length of delay, (2) Reason for delay, (3) All circumstances of the case, balancing efficiency, proportionate cost, and time limit respect.
Martland v HM Revenue & Customs [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Lack of funding is not a good reason for delay.
Martland v HM Revenue & Customs [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Non-contemporaneous medical evidence expressed in general terms carries less weight.
Peters v HMRC [2019] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Outcomes
Applications for permission to appeal late were granted.
The Tribunal found the delays, while serious, were not significant given the complexity of the case and the appellant's director's mental health issues, which contributed to the delay. The potential prejudice to HMRC was balanced against the prejudice to the appellant if the appeals were disallowed. The Tribunal found the appellant had a reasonable argument to proceed with appeals.