TC09585 - [2025] UKFTT 00867 (TC)

the Appellant did not disclose to Officer Weir that he had acquired and disposed of the three Properties other than 8 Wigshaw Lane in addition to 8 Wigshaw Lane after receiving Officer Weir’s letter of 29 August 2017 in relation to the latter Property. It was not until Officer Weir informed the Appellant on 1 September 2018 that he was aware that the Appellant had made profits or gains on other properties and reminded the Appellant of that fact on 17 October 2017 that the Appellant disclosed that that was the case;

the Appellant did not keep appropriate records of the costs which he had incurred in relation to the Properties, with the result that he was unable to provide Officer Weir with the information required to support his claims for most of those costs; and

subject to the above, the Appellant did all he could to help Officer Weir with the enquiries which Officer Weir was making. He instructed HH promptly as soon as he became aware of Officer Weir’s enquiry. Whilst we think that this cannot have been immediately after he received Officer Weir’s initial letter of 29 August 2017 on the morning of 1 September 2017 – given the terms of the Appellant’s response at 14:55 on that day and the fact that Officer Weir did not send his email on that day until 17:00 – we find that the Appellant instructed HH very soon after he received Officer Weir’s email. After that, the Appellant did all he could to ensure that HH responded promptly to Officer Weir’s communications and provided whatever information they could, eventually replacing HH with Brabners. In consequence, the entire length of the enquiry from the date of Officer Weir’s initial letter through to the issue of the Closure Notice, the Discovery Assessments and the Penalties took a little over 10 months, and that included a delay of over a month in February and March 2018 and a delay of twenty days in May 2018 in Officer Weir’s responding to the Appellant’s agent.