Leilani Mitchell & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 July 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 273 (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 is an application by Ms Mitchell and Mr Head for permission to bring late appeals against late-filing penalties for 2014‑15, 2016‑17 and 2018‑19. The tribunal applied the three-stage Denton/Martland approach and refused permission, finding the delays were excessive, the appellants gave scant first‑hand evidence, and their prospects on the merits were weak. The application for permission to notify/make late appeals was therefore 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
Excessive delay in seeking permission for late appeals, combined with a lack of credible first‑hand evidence explaining that delay, is a powerful reason to refuse permission; reliance on an agent (including the agent’s illness and death) does not by itself constitute a good reason or reasonable excuse absent convincing corroboration that the taxpayer took reasonable steps or had justification for reliance.
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 (notwithstanding the refusal) that HMRC would not suffer material prejudice from admitting the late appeals where substantive hearings and evidence had already been presented. It also noted that adviser illness/death and pandemic disruption may impede timely appeals but do not automatically amount to good reasons without corroborating evidence.