![TC09527 - [2025] UKFTT 00563 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
Accordingly, in HMRC’s view a further extension was required. The application was made on 21 February 2025
Accordingly, in HMRC’s view a further extension was required. The application was made on 21 February 2025.
The statement of case was actually served on 4 March 2025. The appellant would not be prejudiced if the application is granted. HMRC would be severely prejudiced.
He was happy to grant the first extension of time, but he thought the second extension of time reflected in the application was unjustifiable. This was particularly the case in light of a telephone conversation he had had on 13 February 2025, with Miss Grainger who had told him that HMRC were on track to meet the 24 February 2025 deadline.
He does not want any further delay. His teak business is just one of his businesses. He wants to conclude the dispute with HMRC as quickly as possible and concentrate on running his businesses. He does not want to be part of any class action.
- Heading
- BACKGROUND FACTS
- RULE 2
- DISCUSSION
- In the alternative, if this is a relief from sanctions case, the principles are set out in the case of William Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (“ Martland ”)
- Accordingly, in HMRC’s view a further extension was required. The application was made on 21 February 2025
- He also wants clarity on the current timetable for this appeal
- Conclusions