Samuel and Helen Moore t/a Moore Farms v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 7 September 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 411 (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 for permission to bring a five‑year late appeal against HMRC's 23 July 2013 cancellation of Moore Farms' Agricultural Flat Rate Scheme certificate. The tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the HMRC investigator did not tell the applicants the scheme was ending and that the applicants' misunderstanding contributed to about four to five years' delay. The tribunal applied the three‑stage Denton/Martland approach, found the delay and prejudice to HMRC outweighed the reasons for lateness (including later CJEU/UT developments), and refused permission to appeal. The applicants have 56 days to seek permission to appeal this tribunal decision.
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
Where an applicant delays for several years, a subsequent change or clarification of the law—even if it strengthens the applicant's position—is not by itself a sufficient reason to grant permission for a very late appeal; the weight of such a development diminishes with the length of delay and with opportunities that existed earlier to pursue interim measures. The tribunal will also give significant weight to contemporaneous documentary records over later recollections when resolving factual disputes about communications with tax officials.
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 that an HMRC investigator's role and seniority do not equate to authority to announce termination of a statutory scheme absent clear documentary evidence, and that even where domestic law may have been wrongly framed, the mere availability of later CJEU clarification does not automatically justify reopening long‑closed matters; claimants could have appealed earlier and sought stays pending reference.