TC09630 - [2025] UKFTT 01071 (TC)

Parts of the UT’s judgment in Katib were set out earlier in this Decision, including their finding at [56] that in the context of the second stage, reliance on advisers “is unlikely to amount to a “good reason” for missing the statutory deadlines. The UT continued in the same paragraph:

“…when considering the third stage of the evaluation required by Martland, we should recognise that exceptions to the general rule are possible and that, if Mr Katib was misled by his advisers, that is a relevant consideration.”

However, the UT went on to find that, for the same reasons as those relating to the second stage, the behaviour of Mr Katib’s adviser had no “real weight” at the third stage. We find that the position is the same here. Having received HMRC’s detailed and clear explanatory letters saying no appeals had been made, Mr Di Lellio could and should have asked Mr Cooke to show him copies of the appeals which he said he had made, together with copies of related HMRC correspondence, but he instead sat back and continued to accept what he had been told. We place no weight on this factor.