The need for time limits to be respected
The need for time limits to be respected
Although the UT said in Martland that significant weight must be placed as a matter of principle on the need for statutory time limits to be respected, we have followed Medpro and not given that factor a “top seat at the table”. It is nevertheless remains a factor to be considered at this third stage.
Mr Di Lellio’s appeals should have been made within 30 days of the assessments, but were between six and seven years late. That factor weighs against Mr Di Lellio, not because we have adopted the Martland approach, but because the delays are extremely long.
- 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)