Liquorstop Convenience Store v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 27 March 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 371 (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 Liquorstop's late Notice of Appeal against a VAT assessment notified in September 2019; the Notice was received by the Tribunal on 5 June 2023. The Tribunal applied the three-stage test for permission to bring a late appeal, found the delay (over 3½ years, or at least 16 days if a later trigger date is assumed) to be serious, found the Appellant's explanations insufficient for the whole period, and refused permission to appeal. The Appellant was told of the right to seek permission to appeal to the Upper Tribunal within 56 days.
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
Permission for a late appeal should only be granted where, on balance, the Tribunal is satisfied it ought to be allowed, applying a staged assessment of (1) the seriousness and significance of the breach, (2) the reasons for the default, and (3) all the circumstances in a proportionality/balancing exercise. A long delay arising from extended prior correspondence and unsubstantiated explanations, and absence of evidence of prompt posting, can justify refusal even if parts of the period are explained by HMRC review engagement and COVID-19 disruption.
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 indicated that HMRC's internal acceptance of hardship carries limited weight unless it is shown the decision-maker knew the appeal was late. Also, repeated opportunities to provide information and a lack of posting evidence for a signed notice may be treated adversely when assessing promptness.