Tomi’s Restaurant Limited & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 27 August 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1256 (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
Tomi’s Restaurant Ltd and Mr Odiase sought permission to bring out-of-time appeals against HMRC discovery assessments totalling £481,399.04 and penalty notices totalling £313,547.37 (with a personal liability notice for Mr Odiase). The Tribunal found delays of over 13 months and over 9 months to be serious, concluded no good reason was shown for missing statutory appeal deadlines, and refused permission to notify the appeals out of time. The decision records rights to apply for permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
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
A genuine subjective belief and good-faith engagement with HMRC do not necessarily amount to a "good reason" for missing clear statutory appeal deadlines when formal review/appeal letters plainly set out the routes and timescales; professional advisers’ failures will generally be treated as failures by the litigant. Confusing or continued correspondence from HMRC can contribute to delay but does not automatically excuse late appeals.
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 that continued substantive engagement by an HMRC caseworker after a "view of the matter" letter can "muddy the waters" and may reduce, though not eliminate, prejudice to HMRC from late appeals. It also noted that where large sums and severe consequences are at stake, taxpayers and advisers are expected to take particular care to protect appeal rights.