Prejudice to HMRC
Prejudice to HMRC
If permission were to be given, HMRC would have to divert resource to prepare for the appeal and attend the hearing. Those are resources which could be used to ensure that other taxpayers were paying the correct amount of tax.
One of the factors on which the Tribunal must place particular weight is that litigation is to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, see Martland at [44] cited above. The PLN relates to periods 01/15 to 06/19, already between ten and six years ago, so it is likely to be more time-consuming and difficult for HMRC to collate and review all the relevant evidence. However, the PLN itself was issued on 26 August 2022 and the Notice of Appeal was filed on 2 December 2022. The time and effort required by HMRC and the Tribunal Service will only be slightly greater than had there been compliance with the directions, so the weight to be ascribed to this factor is in consequence lower.
- 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)