TC09630 - [2025] UKFTT 01071 (TC)

The Tribunal was provided with two bundles (together, “the Bundle”),which contained over 700 pages of documents and authorities, including correspondence between the parties, and between the parties and the Tribunal; extracts from the Companies House website and notes of meetings.

Mr Di Lellio provided a witness statement, but did not attend the hearing. His representative Mr Sanders said this was because Di Lellio was elderly and infirm, and that he wanted the Application to be considered on the basis of the documents in the Bundle together with Mr Sanders’s oral submissions. On behalf of HMRC, Ms Man said it was in the interests of justice to continue in the absence of Mr Di Lellio, and we agreed.

However, as Mr Di Lellio did not attend, Ms Man could not cross-examine him on his witness statement. We therefore did not place weight on the parts of that statement relating to rental income, unless supported by documentary evidence. We set out at §92 below, the documents in the Bundle which relate to rental income.

Ms Man informed us that all the HMRC officers involved in making the decisions for which Mr Di Lellio was now seeking permission to appeal had subsequently left HMRC and so were not available to give evidence. We instead place reliance on the correspondence in the Bundle.

As is clear from our findings of fact below, throughout the relevant period Mr Thomas Cooke of the accountancy firm Thomas Cooke & Co has been Mr Di Lellio’s agent. However, Mr Cooke did not provide a witness statement or attend the hearing. Instead, Mr Sanders, who described himself as a consultant acting on behalf of the same firm, provided a skeleton argument and attended to represent Mr Di Lellio. He confirmed that (a) Mr Cooke was still working for the firm, but (b) that he would not be attending to give evidence about what had happened during the relevant period.

The role played by Mr Cooke was a key issue in this appeal. The Tribunal considered before the hearing began whether Mr Sanders was conflicted, but as he was not involved in the events, and as he was a consultant and not an employee of the firm, we proceeded on the basis that he was not conflicted. As the hearing progressed, that initial view was confirmed: Mr Sanders was entirely straightforward in his approach to the evidence and in his submissions, and did not take a position which favoured Thomas Cooke & Co but which was against Mr Di Lellio’s interests.

On the basis of the evidence provided to us, we make the findings of fact in this Decision.