TC09600 - [2025] UKFTT 00919 (TC)

In around 2015, Mr Milhill’s mother died. Mr Milhill said in his witness statement that as the result of the bereavement, his mental health meant he subsequently “could not carry out his day-to-day affairs without the assistance of his secretary”. There was no related medical evidence, and this point was challenged in cross-examination by Ms di Benedetto.

We first considered the period from Mr Milhill’s mother’s death in 2015 to 5 October 2020, when Haines Watts wrote to Mrs McGuire referring to the death, and continuing “during this period Mr Mihill spent considerable time away from home and his businesses, concentrating on caring for his parents during this difficult time”. Haines Watts, who we reasonably infer to have been acting under instruction, did not say that Mr Milhill had any consequential mental health difficulties.

On 23 October 2020, Mrs McGuire replied to the letter from Haines Watts: her questions included the following:

“3.

Can you tell me how this impacted on his personal and business interests.

4.

Can you tell me if he was prevented from carrying on with his day-to-day personal life and how.

5.

Can you tell me if he continued running his businesses? If not, what happened during the period involved.

6.

Please fully explain why the above prevented him from:

a.

Submitting his SA Tax Returns on time

b.

Completing accurate SA Tax Returns

c.

Submitting timeous appeals against his 2015 and 2016 Assessments.”

On 22 February 2021, Haines Watts replied as follows:

“As previously stated, Mr Mihill’s mother passed away approximately six years ago following treatment for cancer. This greatly affected Mr Mihill resulting in him taking an extended break from his work commitments. This is turning lead to delays in keeping his personal tax affairs up to date resulting in the late submission of his tax returns.

The response was thus couched in vague and imprecise terms which failed to answer Mrs McGuire’s detailed questions; it also related to the late submission of the SA returns and not to the failure to appeal by the statutory time limits.

As we have already found, on the basis of Mr Milhill’s oral evidence, in 2019-20 he was “too busy” to deal with his tax affairs because he was raising funds for a global technology business. He told the Tribunal he continued to be “very busy” in the following three years, both with his business and with other responsibilities such as his involvement with the local cricket club.

We find that there is no reliable evidence that mental health difficulties consequent upon his mother’s death prevented Mr Milhill from appealing the penalties, assessments and closure notices issued to him by HMRC. In particular, it is not credible that a person who was capable of operating one or more significant business ventures, including meetings with investors in Dubai, Antigua and the USA, was unable to “carry out his day-to-day affairs without the assistance of his secretary”.

We therefore reject that part of Mr Milhill’s witness statement and find as a fact that he was at all relevant times mentally capable of carrying on day to day activities, and was not prevented by his mental health from engaging with HMRC in relation to his tax affairs.