TC09602 - [2025] UKFTT 00930 (TC)

It follows from this case law that the Tribunal should not normally find that a person’s reliance on his adviser provides a good reason for delay. Ms Goldring submitted that the facts of Mr Gill’s case did not take him outside that normal range, emphasising that:

I agree with Ms Goldring that the normal position is that the reasonable taxpayer will check with his adviser, and that Mr Gill did not do so. However, as the UT said in Uddin, I am required to consider what a reasonable taxpayer in Mr Gill’s position would have done.

The directions were issued on 6 June 2023; Mr Gill made contact with TMS in August, but was not told about the directions or provided with a copy. No further contact was then made. The question is thus whether the reasonable taxpayer in his position would have contacted TMS during the period from August 2023 to December 7 2023, when the appeal was struck out.

The first part of that period was from the date of Mr Gill’s contact in August to the date of his admission to hospital on 2 October. I was not provided with the date of Mr Gill’s contact with TMS: if it was at the end of August, the period was a month; if at the beginning, the period was two months. Either way, it was relatively short.

The key period was between 2 October 2023 and 7 December 2023. The Tribunal sent out the warning letter on 6 October 2023; the Unless Order followed on 22 November 2023, and the appeal was struck out on 7 December 2023.

Four days before that period began, Mr Gill had been admitted to hospital on an emergency basis and diagnosed with end stage renal failure and Covid; he was on dialysis initially three times a week, with this being increased to four times in December; in the same month, he was diagnosed with heart failure. In addition, Mrs Gill was seriously injured in a car accident during October.

Although Ms Goldring referred to the filing of the tax return on 5 January 2024 and the call with HMRC on 12 February 2024, both took place at least a month after the deadline for compliance with the Unless Order.

In my judgment, the reasonable taxpayer in Mr Gill’s position would not be keeping tabs on his adviser to make sure the appeal was on track, as the UT put it in Uddin. He would be focused entirely on his life-threatening health conditions and the consequences of his wife’s car accident.

I find that it was reasonable of Mr Gill not to contact TMS between August and 2 October (because the period was short), and it was also reasonable for him not to make contact between 2 October 2024 and 7 December 2023. This is thus is a case where the facts are distinguishable from those considered in Katib and Uddin.

The third stage in the Martland approach is to consider all the circumstances, and then to carry out a balancing exercise.