Kinross Estate Company v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 25 September 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1146 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Kinross Estate Company applied for permission to bring a late appeal against a 2019 closure notice decision; the Tribunal found the proposed challenge really sought to deny that the company had included a house disposal on its return rather than to challenge any HMRC amendment required by the closure notice. The appeal was held to fall outside the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under Schedule 18 and to be plainly doomed, and permission to appeal late was refused.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal treated Schedule 18 as permitting appeals only against amendments required to give effect to a closure notice’s conclusions; where a disputed entry on a return was not the result of an HMRC amendment, it could not be challenged under Schedule 18. The Tribunal also held that, applying the Martland factors, permission for a late appeal may be refused where the delay is extensive and the proposed appeal is plainly doomed, having regard to certainty and good administration.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal observed it could not adjudicate Scottish land law ownership issues and remarked that an appellant should not use the appeal process simply to correct its own alleged mistake; it also noted the court need not undertake a detailed merits review when deciding late permission but should take account of any obvious strengths or weaknesses of the proposed appeal.
Warning
Document contains substantial repetition and duplicated passages; some material repeats earlier paragraphs. Notes contain substantial repetition and duplicated passages.