TC09656 - [2025] UKFTT 01207 (TC)

This is the decision of the Tribunal, to which we have all contributed. The applicant, Lands Luo Limited (LL Ltd), applies for permission to make a late appeal to the Tribunal pursuant to section 83G(4)(c) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 (VATA 1994). The late appeal is against HMRC’s decision dated 13 October 2023 to deny repayment of £153,357 input tax which LL Ltd had claimed in its VAT return for the 04/21 tax period.

The hearing took place on Wednesday 10 September 2025. On Monday 8 September 2025 HMRC had paid £42,321.84 to LL Ltd representing sums which HMRC accepted were properly claimed as inputs and therefore recoverable, less late submission or payment penalties and interest outstanding for more recent VAT periods.

The application raises issues about whether LL Ltd made an application to appeal in time, meaning that no permission to make a late application is required. LL Ltd’s case is that its agent had, in its email dated 8 November 2023, asked for a review or appeal. LL Ltd rely in addition on a letter dated 9 November 2023 which LL Ltd say was sent by its director, Mr Yuan Luo, seeking both a review and appeal, again in time. In any event LL Ltd submit that if an extension of time is required, it should be granted. This raises an issue relating to the decisions in Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 0178 (TCC) (Martland) and Medpro Healthcare Limited (1) and Kalvinder Ruprai (2) v HMRC [2025] UKUT 00255 (TCC) dated 30 July 2025 (Medpro) and the test to be applied by the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (FTT Tax) when deciding whether to grant permission to bring an appeal out of time.

The respondents, The Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (HMRC), contend that there was no application for an appeal or review contained in the email dated 8 November 2023. HMRC contend that the letter dated 9 November 2023 was not sent to HMRC and so cannot be relied on. It is submitted that there should be no extension of time to permit the appeal to be brought, because of the time that has passed from the time when an appeal should have been notified, the failure to take steps to determine what had happened to the appeal, and the need for finality.

LL Ltd carried on business by receiving orders for luxury goods from persons living in China. LL Ltd would then acquire the goods from retail outlets in the UK, using intermediaries to buy those goods from shops in the UK. VAT formed part of the price paid for those goods. LL Ltd would then obtain payment for the goods from the persons in China and send the goods to China. No VAT was payable by those persons in China to LL Ltd. LL Ltd would then claim the VAT paid to the retail outlets as inputs for the purposes of VAT. LL Ltd had no VAT that it received as outputs. It is apparent that the reclaimed VAT represented the profit that LL Ltd made in carrying out its business. Issues arose about the receipts supporting the claims for input tax that LL Ltd made.

We were provided with the following documents:

Mr Yuan Luo provided a 3 page written witness statement and gave oral evidence at the hearing through a HMCTS appointed Mandarin interpreter. Mr Luo answered questions from Mr Feng, Mr Corps and the panel.

We heard submissions from Mr Feng on behalf of LL Ltd and Mr Corps on behalf of HMRC, and are very grateful for their assistance.

By the conclusion of the hearing it was apparent that the following matters were in issue: (1) whether the email dated 8 November 2023 contained a request for a review or appeal; (2) whether the letter dated 9 November 2023 was written and sent to HMRC in November 2023; and (3) whether LL Ltd should be granted permission to bring a late appeal.