![TC09594 - [2025] UKFTT 00893 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
Mr Finerty thought that he had made a valid request for a statutory review in the Valentine’s Day letter Secondly, the appellant reasonably relied on BP. He was under the mistaken impression that Mr Finerty had responded to HMRC’s letter of 8 March 2
Mr Finerty thought that he had made a valid request for a statutory review in the Valentine’s Day letter.
Secondly, the appellant reasonably relied on BP. He was under the mistaken impression that Mr Finerty had responded to HMRC’s letter of 8 March 2023. HMRC vKotecha [2025] UKFTT 330 (“Kotecha”) is authority for the proposition that reliance on an adviser is a reasonable excuse where the reliance is itself reasonable particularly in circumstances where there is nothing to suggest to the taxpayer that matters are not proceeding in an orderly fashion.
The appellant had reminded Mr Finerty to respond to HMRC’s letter of 3 March 2023. He therefore thought that things were proceeding in an orderly manner.
Mr Finerty was under the misapprehension as to the appellant’s rights in respect of the settlement under section 54 TMA which misapprehension was caused by HMRC. In the letters explaining that HMRC had treated the matter as settled under that section, they did not say that the appeal had been “deemed to be settled”. This is important as an appellant has no right to resile from this deemed section 54 agreement.
- Heading
- INTRODUCTION
- THE LAW
- THE EVIDENCE AND THE FACTS
- DISCUSSION
- Submissions - not late
- My view - not late
- Late appeal
- He accepted that the delay in notifying the appeal to the tribunal is serious and significant
- Mr Finerty thought that he had made a valid request for a statutory review in the Valentine’s Day letter Secondly, the appellant reasonably relied on BP. He was under the mistaken impression that Mr Finerty had responded to HMRC’s letter of 8 March 2
- The merits of the parties respective positions did not militate strongly one way or the other
- The appellant’s delay is at worst 586 days and best 62 days. These are both serious and significant
- The merits of the appellant’s underlying case are weak My view
- DECISION
- RIGHT TO APPLY FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
- An appeal may be brought against–
- In relation to an appeal under section 31(1) (a) or (c) of this Act –
- In relation to an appeal under section 31(1) (b) of this Act –
- (4A) In relation to an appeal under section 31(1)(d) against a simple assessment—
- HMRC must, within the relevant period, notify the appellant of HMRC's view of the matter in question HMRC must review the matter in question in accordance with section 49E
- 49C— HMRC offer review Subsections (2) to (6) apply if HMRC notify the appellant of an offer to review the matter in question
- Subsections (2) and (3) do not apply in a case where—
- The nature and extent of the review are to be such as appear appropriate to HMRC in the circumstances
- The review may conclude that HMRC's view of the matter in question is to be—
- Conclusions