TC09587 - [2025] UKFTT 00875 (TC)

Fecha: 09-Jun-2025

SUBMISSIONS

SUBMISSIONS

31.

Mr Wine for the Appellant initially set out a history of, and grievances with, the Appellant’s previous dealings with the Respondents since 2015, but agreed that this was not relevant to the matter at hand. He set out three substantive points in relation to his application, although I have considered and taken account of all the submissions made on behalf of the Appellant. I understood these three points to be as follows (and Mr Wine confirmed my summary):

(1)

That the review decision dated 17 December 2020 was out of time, having been received on 21 December 2020. This was 4 days later than the extension agreed with the Respondents, which required the decision to have been received by 17 December 2023. By way of letter dated 21 December 2020, the Appellant stated that it considered the review to be late and invited the Respondents to repay the VAT. The Respondents reply, by email dated 4 January 2021, stated that they considered the review to have been notified on time.

In default of the review being completed on time, HMRC ought to have undertaken an assessment, which they had not done. Accordingly, there was no decision to appeal, and the Appellant had only appealed because it had been invited to by the Respondents in subsequent correspondence. I was invited to consider the case of Dennison v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 364 (TC) (“Dennison”).

(2)

In the correspondence dated 26 October 2023, the Appellant requested that the Respondents confirm that they would not oppose any late notification of the appeal to the Tribunal. HMRC had responded by letter dated 21 November 2023. No copy of that letter was made available to the Tribunal, but Mr Wine agreed that the Respondents did not state within it that they agreed not to oppose any such late appeal. However, he submitted that the lack of a substantive response to that request should be considered to be an agreement not to oppose the late appeal.

(3)

There were delays as a result of Covid-19, particularly in 2020.

32.

In reply, Mrs Skipper for the Respondents stated that she was content to deal with these points, even though they were not points raised in the Notice of Appeal or in the Appellant’s response to the request for further and better particulars.

33.

Mrs Skipper relied upon the grounds as set out in the “Respondents’ Notice of Objection to Late Appeal Application”, in which the Tribunal is invited to apply the test set out in William Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) (“Martland”). It is argued that the delay in bringing the appeal was both serious and significant, that there was no good reason for the delay and that, in consideration of all of the circumstances, the merits of the appeal were weak and there should be reliance on time limits.

34.

In addition, she submitted:

(1)

The review was in time. She placed reliance on HMRC’s internal manual “Appeals reviews and tribunals guidance” at ARTG4690.

(2)

If the review decision was out of time, the default position is that the original decision stands and that decision ought to have been appealed instead.

(3)

The case of Dennison is distinguishable as it is a direct tax case.