![TC09600 - [2025] UKFTT 00919 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png){kind=logo}
ISSUE 1: WHETHER MR MILHILL WAS NOTIFIED
ISSUE 1: WHETHER MR MILHILL WAS NOTIFIED
Ms Rahman asked the Tribunal to find that Mr Milhill was not notified of any of the decisions listed at the beginning of this judgment. We considered that issue first, because (as explained below) if Mr Milhill was not notified of the decisions, time will not have started to run, and his appeals will not be late.
- Heading
- Introduction
- The matters before the Tribunal
- The evidence
- Mr Milhill’s business and the addresses
- Late filing penalties
- The 2014-15 tax year
- The 2015-16 tax year
- The subsequent correspondence and assessments
- The appeals and applications, and the bankruptcy petition
- Mr Milhill’s mental health
- Mr Milhill’s physical health
- Ms Griffith’s health
- ISSUE 1: WHETHER MR MILHILL WAS NOTIFIED
- The Law
- The legislation under which the decisions were made
- The Interpretation Act
- The UT judgment in Websons
- Application to this case
- Decisions issued after 3 July 2020
- Decisions copied to Mr Milhill on 9 July 2020
- Decisions sent to Ms Griffiths
- ISSUE 2: WHETHER TO GIVE PERMISSION
- The time limits
- The Case Law
- The length of the delays
- Serious and/or significant?
- Mr Milhill’s health?
- Conclusions