Alan and Diane McFarland v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 23 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 355 (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
The McFarlands appealed HMRC VAT assessments; an unless order required sending hardship evidence to HMRC by 5pm on 9 March 2020. The Tribunal found the appellants breached the order because the first email went only to the Tribunal (not HMRC), but the breach was not serious and the delay in sending the material to HMRC later that day caused minimal prejudice. Balancing the length and reasons for delay and prejudice, the Tribunal granted both reinstatement of the appeal and permission for the reinstatement application to be brought out of time.
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: medium
The decision treats a failure to send required material to the specified recipient as a technical breach even if the Tribunal received an automated acknowledgement; and it applies the established multi-stage approach (length of delay; reasons for default; overall evaluation weighing prejudice and the need for efficient litigation) when deciding reinstatement and out-of-time permission applications.
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 judgment suggests that when hardship evidence is required to be shown to HMRC, the taxpayer’s primary obligation is to communicate that evidence to HMRC rather than only to the Tribunal, and that minor slips (such as failing to copy the correct recipient) may be a justifiable reason for delay if promptly remedied and prejudice to the respondent is minimal.