Neil Lyon v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 31 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 920 (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
This case concerns whether a one‑page letter said to have been sent in June 2023 constituted a valid appeal against a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) and whether the Tribunal should permit a late appeal. The Tribunal found the June Letter was not a valid appeal to HMRC (it did not identify statutory grounds), the appellant gave no credible evidence of having validly appealed earlier, and no reasonable excuse was shown for an eight‑to‑eleven month delay. Applying the three‑stage test for out‑of‑time appeals, the Tribunal refused permission to admit the late appeal.
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 applied the three‑stage approach to out‑of‑time appeals (measure length of delay; consider reasons for delay; balance all circumstances and prejudice) starting from the presumption that permission should not be granted unless satisfied it ought to be. It held that an asserted earlier appeal which is disputed and unsupported by evidence (particularly where the appellant declines to give evidence) will not be treated as having been given for statutory purposes, and that reliance on HMRC guidance or poor adviser advice, without more, does not constitute a reasonable excuse for significant delay.
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 noted (obiter) that it is a creature of statute and that HMRC guidance represents only HMRC’s view of the law. It also observed that shortage of funds, litigant‑in‑person status, or reliance on poor adviser advice generally carry little weight as excuses for missing statutory appeal deadlines, and that permission hearings should avoid detailed merits determinations on disputed evidence.