Mr Jack Harouni v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 18 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 361 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
Mr Harouni sought permission to bring a late appeal against an HMRC closure notice assessing a 2003/04 capital gain on "The Paddocks". The Tribunal found he had actual knowledge of the notice, engaged accountants who reviewed it, entered an instalment arrangement and delayed beyond the statutory deadline without an adequate reasonable excuse. The Tribunal refused permission to extend time to appeal, concluding the appellant's conduct and the public interest in finality weighed against granting late permission.
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: medium
Where an appellant had actual knowledge of a closure notice, obtained professional representation who reviewed the matter, accepted liability in part by entering payment arrangements, and then allowed the statutory appeal deadline to lapse without an adequate reasonable excuse or new basis for appeal, the Tribunal may refuse permission to extend time; in exercising its discretion the Tribunal will weigh factors including public interest in finality, the appellant’s conduct, age, and the sums at stake.
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 commented that a retired person previously told they need not file tax returns cannot reasonably rely on that as meaning they will never need to file returns if circumstances change, and that general complaints about accountants’ competence, without specific supporting evidence, are unlikely to justify extending time for an appeal.