Leslie Gordon v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 807 (TC)
R & E Goonesena v The Commissioners for HMRC
25 June 2024
[2024] UKFTT 619 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
A couple appealed late to the tax tribunal about extra taxes owed. The delay was too long and their explanation wasn't good enough, so the tribunal refused to hear their appeal, even though a lot of money was at stake. The judge said following the rules and being quick is more important.
Key Facts
- •Mr and Mrs Goonesena purchased a property in Guildford on 4 July 2008.
- •They submitted an SDLT return reporting £1,386 SDLT.
- •HMRC issued a discovery assessment for additional SDLT of £33,613.12 on 6 September 2011.
- •An appeal was initially made but put on hold.
- •On 20 June 2022, HMRC concluded the Appellants were liable for additional SDLT.
- •A review upheld the decision on 16 August 2022.
- •On 26 February 2023, a late appeal was submitted to the Tribunal (5 months after the review conclusion).
Legal Principles
Requirements for appealing against an SDLT discovery assessment.
Paragraph 36G of Schedule 10 to Finance Act 2003
Rules for late appeals, requiring permission from the Tribunal and stating reasons for the delay.
Rule 20 of the FTT Rules
Principles for granting permission for late appeals, focusing on delay length, reason for delay, and a balancing exercise of prejudice to both parties.
Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)
Merits of the appeal should only be considered if they are exceptionally strong or weak, to avoid lengthy merits-based disputes.
Hysaj (cases)
Outcomes
The application for permission to notify the appeals late was refused.
The Tribunal found the delay (over 5 months) was serious and significant. The reason for the delay – a decision not to appeal initially based on a perceived low chance of success, followed by discovery of a potential avenue of appeal – was deemed insufficient. The balancing exercise considered the prejudice to both parties, with the Tribunal prioritizing the need for efficient litigation and adherence to deadlines. While acknowledging the significant tax sum involved, the Tribunal followed the precedent in Elizabeth Green, emphasizing that the amount at stake cannot outweigh other factors.