Prejudice to HMRC
Prejudice to HMRC
If permission were to be given, HMRC would have to divert resources to prepare for the appeal and attend a hearing. Those resources could otherwise be used to ensure that other taxpayers are paying the correct amount of tax. Moreover, because of the passage of time, the Officers in question no longer work with HMRC. Even if they can be located and are willing to attend, the assessments in question were made in 2018 and 2019, and the passage of time (caused by the delay in applying for permission to appeal) is likely to have affected their memory of the events in question, and this may prejudice HMRC’s position.
- Heading
- Introduction and Summary
- The Evidence
- Findings of fact
- Tax years 2011-12 and 2012-13: assessments
- Tax years 2013-14 to 2015-16: assessments
- The Form
- Mr Di Lellio’s diagnosis
- Penalties for inaccuracies
- PLNs
- Subsequent events including bankruptcy proceedings
- Jurisdiction of the Tribunal
- The legislation about appeals
- The discovery assessments
- The closure notice amendments
- The steps taken by the parties
- The timing of the Application
- The Case Law
- The first Martland stage: the delays
- The second Marland stage: reasons for delays
- Reliance on advisers
- The need for time limits to be respected
- Merits
- Other prejudice to Mr Di Lellio
- Prejudice to HMRC
- Other Tribunal users
- Conclusions
![TC09630 - [2025] UKFTT 01071 (TC)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_7HSuEAV.png)