TC09652 - [2025] UKFTT 01187 (TC)

There was an initial question about what was in scope of the appeal.

WWL’s original appeal notice referred only to the failure to notify penalty. However, following later correspondence WWL confirmed that it intended to appeal not only the penalties but also the assessment. Ms Hill confirmed this at the hearing.

On the first question of establishing the length of the delay and considering whether this delay was serious or significant, there is no dispute here as to the fact that the appeal was late, or to the dates. Leaving aside the appeal against the last late payment penalty, all the appeals were between 6 and 18 months late.

Such a level of delay in the context of an appeal deadline, in each case, of 30 days is no doubt both serious and significant.

The last appeal was only 10 days late, which is less serious. However, the reasons given for all the lateness were the same and therefore we move on to consider the second and third stages on all matters together.

On the second question, the main reason put forward is that WWL did not receive any of the correspondence. HMRC’s evidence is that the letters were all sent by post to the same address as all other correspondence which was received.

Ms Hill’s evidence was initially focused on the fact that the pub was closed from January 2023. This turned out to be irrelevant to the question at hand because, when pushed to consider the period when most of the letters were sent, during which the pub was open, she confirmed that the correspondence address concerned is a head office address, not the pub. She further explained that she had in fact been working mainly from home during the period, but periodically checking correspondence at the head office address. However, since most correspondence was by email, this was sporadic. In any event, she stated that the letters were not received there.

In addition to the documentary inconsistencies in dates highlighted by HMRC, we found Ms Hill’s evidence to be inconsistent and, particularly when asked about the receipt of letters during the course of 2022, unclear at best.

On the balance of probabilities, we find that HMRC did send the relevant letters to the head office address and we find that the likelihood of all the letters charging assessments and penalties going missing to be very low, particularly when the original requests for information and the letter notifying the possible publication as a deliberate tax defaulter were quite clearly received at the same address.

Turning to the third question we must make an evaluation of all the circumstances of the case, which will involve a balancing exercise between the merits of the reasons given for the delay and the prejudice that would be caused to both parties by granting or refusing permission.

There are several factors of prejudice to consider. Firstly the prejudice to the Appellant in not being able to pursue their appeal. This factor weighs in support of allowing the late appeal.

On the other side, HMRC would be prejudiced by having to defend an appeal on a matter that they considered to be closed. This factor weighs against allowing the late appeal.

There was very limited discussion of the merits of the case, not least because all the evidence that WWL was intending to rely on in the substantive appeal was lodged with the Tribunal and HMRC very shortly before the hearing of the application. As a result, we do not consider this factor weighs in either direction.

Having concluded that the likelihood of all the relevant letters being lost in the post is very low, we must consider whether, in this balancing exercise, we can consider the possibility of lost post could constitute a good reason for the delay in this case. We find that it cannot. Even if we accept at face value that the relevant information was provided in response to HMRC’s original information notice and that these specific letters were not recovered from the empty head office address, it was not a reasonable position for WWL to take to assume that HMRC had simply accepted WWL’s information and sent no further correspondence for over 18 months without taking some action. Ms Hill suggested that most communication was managed effectively by email, but did not return HMRC’s email protocol, which would have enabled that communication.

Drawing these factors together in the balancing exercise, we do not consider that Wolf & Whistle Limited has established a good reason for the delays in bringing the appeal and, in all the circumstances, we do not consider that it is appropriate to give permission for them to bring a late appeal in this case.

For the avoidance of doubt, we confirm that our decision would have been no different if particular weight had been given to the two matters identified in the Medpro decision referred to above.