Gary Stenhouse v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 820 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: low
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: low
This appeal concerned permission to bring very late appeals against HMRC discovery assessments (total assessments c.£447,639) and against Schedule 36 information‑notice penalties (total £13,700). The First‑tier Tribunal applied the Martland three‑stage test and granted permission to appeal out of time against the discovery assessments because obvious evidential weaknesses in HMRC’s discovery/carelessness case outweighed the delay, but refused permission in respect of the penalty notices. Parties have 56 days to seek permission to 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 Martland three‑stage approach (length of delay; reasons for delay; balancing all relevant circumstances including prejudice and case strengths/weaknesses) when deciding whether to allow late appeals. It held that, where HMRC relies on extended time limits via discovery assessments, HMRC bears an evidential burden to show a valid discovery and taxpayer carelessness; obvious weaknesses in that material can justify permitting a very late appeal despite serious 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 judgment suggested (non‑binding observations) that poverty or self‑representation ordinarily carries little weight in explaining delay; the usual presumption of regularity in HMRC decision‑making can be undermined where the material supporting a protective discovery assessment has obvious weaknesses; and historic bank statements may be important to rebut discovery assessments but were not necessary to challenge penalties for non‑compliance with information notices.
Warning
Chunk contains extensive repetition of the same material and duplicated passages. The provided notes include repeated and duplicated material and may be incomplete; none