TC09669 - [2025] UKFTT 01256 (TC)

There is no dispute here that Mr Marshall has not complied with the information notice in question and therefore, subject to the point in dispute, would be liable for a penalty for that failure. Mr Marshall has not raised any arguments concerning whether the documentation in the information notice was outside of his possession or power.

There also appears to be no dispute as to whether the penalty notice was issued within the time limit. HMRC rely on the Hanan to support the conclusion that the question of time limits is determined at the date of issue. Mr Marshall did not put forward any arguments as to why we should not follow that decision. We are bound to follow the decision in Hanan¸ and find that the time limits for issuing the penalty notice were met.

The fundamental dispute here is a narrow one concerning how letters sent to Mr Marshall’s home were addressed and the impact of the form of words used.

There is no dispute here that the geographical address used for the correspondence sent in November and December 2023 was the correct address for Mr Marshall’s home.

Mr Marshall has also acknowledged on more than one occasion that letters were received at his home, but not opened and returned to HMRC. Some, but not all, of this returned correspondence was received back into HMRC.

The key correspondence in question was addressed in the same manner, as set out in paragraph 41 above.

Mr Marshall is arguing that the presence of his name amongst the names of two other individuals and the name of a trading entity meant that these letters were mis-addressed. Further, he argues that the form of address meant that he was actually prevented from opening the correspondence because he had no right to open post that was addressed to Mayfair. This was on the basis that he had resigned/retired from involvement with Mayfair.

HMRC relies on section 115 of TMA 1970 to support their position, arguing that the notices were sent to the last known address and this is sufficient.

We agree that sending to the last known address as the location for delivery is adequate to meet the requirements under section 115 of TMA 1970.

The question Mr Marshall seems to be putting is whether the names included above the geographical address are enough to support his conclusion that he did not receive the notices and whether he was justified in sending them back unopened.

There is a span of potential answers here. If the letters had been addressed to ABC Limited, a company with which Mr Marshall had never had any involvement or a Mr Smith, then Mr Marshall could, reasonably, have concluded that something had gone awry in the administration of these letters and could have returned them unopened to HMRC, who would then have been on notice that something had gone wrong.

That is not the factual circumstance we are dealing with. Instead we are dealing with a letter:

We find that it was not a reasonable course of action for Mr Marshall to treat a letter addressed in this way as if it was not addressed to him. To accept that position would allow a taxpayer to wilfully turn a blind eye to important correspondence from the HMRC.

HMRC investigate tax periods other than the current tax year as a regular part of their operations. The name Mayfair Tax Consultants was not a compete mystery to Mr Marshall. He had previously worked as part of Mayfair and the information being requested related to a period, for at least a part of which, he had been working for Mayfair.

We conclude that it was not fair or reasonable for Mr Marshall to return the letter enclosing the information notice, nor the letter issuing the penalty, unopened. They were appropriately addressed to him personally.

We therefore uphold the penalty.

This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.