Merits
Merits
In Chappell,the UT held that in reinstatement applications, the Tribunal should “generally take no account of the strength of the applicant’s case” unless that case was “unanswerable”. This is a PLN, where the burden rests on HMRC; Mr Gill appealed on the basis that he had not acted deliberately, and Ms Goldring did not submit that HMRC’s case was “unanswerable”. I have thus not taken the merits into account in my assessment of the circumstances.
- Heading
- Introduction and summary
- The Evidence
- Evidence about the role played by Mr Monk/TMS
- Mr Gill’s evidence
- Ms Gill
- Findings of fact
- Mr Gill’s business and the assessments
- Mr Gill’s health, the Tribunal’s directions and the failures to comply
- The first postponed hearing
- The second postponed hearing
- Pre-hearing correspondence
- TMS’s lack of response
- Mr Gill’s failure to attend
- Factors to consider
- Reasons for not adjourning the hearing
- Late application to reinstate
- The case law
- The first Martland stage
- Mr Gill’s health
- Reliance on TMS
- Case law on reliance on advisers
- Application to Mr Gill’s case
- The need for time limits to be respected
- Reliance on advisers
- Prejudice to Mr Gill
- Prejudice to HMRC
- Merits
- Other Tribunal users
- Conclusions
![TC09602 - [2025] UKFTT 00930 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)