Leslie Gordon v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 5 September 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 807 (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 an application by Leslie Gordon for permission to bring a 524‑day late appeal against an HMRC closure notice assessing SDLT on the 2011 purchase of Elmers Barn, where sub‑sale relief had been claimed in respect of a scheme involving an original sale plus a £1 option. Applying established delay principles, the Tribunal refused permission: the delay was serious and significant, no good reason or special circumstances justified it, and the appellant’s underlying case lacked realistic prospects (being on all fours with authority that option grants do not attract sub‑sale relief). Permission to appeal out of time was therefore refused.
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 framework (length of delay; reasons for default; balancing all circumstances, including prejudice and finality) and held that a substantial unexplained delay (here 524 days) is prima facie serious and significant such that permission to appeal late will be refused absent good reasons or special circumstances. It also treated as a merits point that a grant of a future option which does not confer an entitlement to require completion is not an "other transaction" qualifying for sub‑sale relief, following existing authority.
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 indicated, obiter, that pursuing complaints through HMRC’s two‑tier complaints process is distinct from Tribunal appeal rights and does not ordinarily excuse failure to bring a timely appeal; and that the First‑tier Tribunal does not have a general supervisory jurisdiction to remedy HMRC conduct outside deciding tax provisions.