Daniel Fireman v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 893 (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
This case concerns whether an appeal against HMRC's 11 December 2020 closure notice was brought in time or, alternatively, whether permission should be granted for a very late appeal. The tribunal held that the appellant's agent's 14 February 2023 letter did not validly accept HMRC's offer of a statutory review, HMRC's corrected "view of the matter" letter was not invalidated by a typographical date error, and s118(2) TMA did not save the appeal; applying the established three‑stage (Martland) approach the tribunal refused permission for the late 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: medium
The binding ratio is that HMRC "view of the matter" correspondence must be construed objectively and typographical errors do not invalidate the communication where an objective reader would understand the matter in question; an agent's ambiguous, non‑technical references to a desire for "review" do not constitute acceptance of a statutory review under s49C TMA; and acceptance of an HMRC offer of review is voluntary and not an act "required to be done" for the purposes of s118(2) TMA, so s118(2) will not ordinarily save a failure to accept within the statutory period. Failings of an agent will usually be attributed to the appellant when considering permission for a late appeal.
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 observed (obiter) that there may be a distinction between prospective extensions of time by HMRC under care‑and‑management powers and retrospective extensions, suggesting prospective extensions within the 30‑day period might be permissible while retrospective extensions are less likely to cure expiry; there was also a brief note that s114 might cure in some circumstances, though no clear conclusion on that point was reached.