TC09506 - [2025] UKFTT 00497 (TC)

Once again, the background facts and my findings in respect of certain relevant matters are set out in the reinstatement decision. But those of particular relevance to my consideration of the opt out application are set out below:

Mr Ved of Sterling Associates has acted for the appellant for over 20 years. During that time, the appellant has had no reason to doubt Mr Ved’s competence. Whenever the appellant has received correspondence from HMRC, during that time, he has had a cursory look at it and then sent it to Mr Ved for the latter to deal with. This is the case with the correspondence relating to the notice of determination.

Mr Ved has considerable experience with disputes with HMRC and the tribunal process. He gave me three such examples, one of which, involving an MTIC appeal, which he ran with a VAT consultant and which collapsed the day before the hearing. He accepted in oral evidence that he was aware of the importance of compliance with statutory deadlines and with tribunal directions.

Sterling Associates were instructed by the appellant to deal with the IHT filings following Mrs Kotecha’s death in July 2014. In 2015 HMRC raised a number of queries regarding the IHT return and continued their enquiry until May 2023 when HMRC issued a statutory review conclusion letter upholding their determination.

Mr Ved was instructed by the appellant to appeal against that notice of determination which he did on 25 June 2023.

The tribunal allocated the appeal to the complex track on 17 August 2023, notifying the appellant of this. At this stage neither Mr Ved nor Sterling Associates had completed the appropriate authorised representative form, so correspondence was sent to the appellant.

The letter dated 17 August 2023 sets out, amongst other things, the position regarding costs. In the first paragraph of the letter, the “…Tribunal acknowledges receipt of your Notice of Appeal dated 25 June 2023 which has been assigned to proceed under the Complex category”.