TC09684 - [2025] UKFTT 01336 (TC)

Fecha: 28-Oct-2025

Introduction

Introduction

At all relevant times, Mr Dreyer was the director, majority shareholder and beneficial owner of Contactlenses Limited (“CLL”), a company in the Seychelles. On 13 May 2020, HM Revenue & Customs (“HMRC”) issued CLL with a civil evasion penalty of £4,964,865 under VATA s 60, and on the same day issued Mr Dreyer with a civil evasion penalty of the same amount (“the Penalty”) under VATA s 61, on the basis that CLL’s behaviour was wholly attributable to Mr Dreyer’s dishonesty. On 16 May 2024, Mr Dreyer applied to the Tribunal for permission to make a late appeal against the Penalty. At the hearing, Mr Young represented Mr Dreyer and Mr Puzey represented HMRC.

The issues in the case were:

(1)

Whether the 30 day time limit in VATA s 83G(1) had legal effect, or whether as the result of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and/or the European Convention on Human Rights (“the Convention”), there was no time limit for making an appeal. Mr Young described this as “the Constitutional Issue”.

(2)

Whether Mr Dreyer had notified HMRC that he was accepting the offer to review the Penalty.

(3)

If neither of the above was the position, whether Mr Dreyer should be given permission to bring his appeal to the Tribunal after the statutory time limit.

I decided as follows:

(1)

the 30 day time limit did have legal effect;

(2)

Mr Dreyer did not notify HMRC that he had accepted HMRC’s review offer; and

(3)

Mr Dreyer does not have permission to bring his appeal late.