Goldmund Byrne v The Commissioners For HMRC
Decision date: 3 September 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1376 (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
Goldmund Byrne applied for permission to lodge late appeals against multiple HMRC penalties and interest for tax years 2015–16 to 2019–20. The Tribunal struck out parts of the appeal (Grounds 2 and 4 and related complaints) for lack of jurisdiction and, applying the three-stage Martland approach, found the delays were substantial, GB’s reasons (including later-diagnosed ADHD/autism and limited medical evidence) did not constitute a continuing reasonable excuse, and refused permission for the late appeals.
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 Tribunal applied the established three-stage test for late appeals—length of delay, reasons for default, and balancing all circumstances (prejudice, finality, efficiency)—and held that allegations about HMRC unfairness, allocation of payments, Time to Pay arrangements, and statutory interest fall outside the First-tier Tribunal’s jurisdiction and may be struck out under Rule 8(2) when relied upon to challenge penalties.
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 that neurodiversity diagnoses confirmed after the relevant period do not, without contemporaneous notification or stronger evidential linkage, establish that HMRC knew of vulnerability or should have provided extra support; and that regular contact with HMRC and evidence of company administration activity can undermine claims that health conditions wholly prevented engagement with appeal rights. These observations were not framed as binding ratio.
Warning
Document is repetitive and contains duplicated passages; some material is duplicated verbatim and the medical records correspondence section was missing. Notes are repetitive and contain duplicated passages; some medical records correspondence was missing, so the record of evidence may be materially incomplete.