Professor David Barrett v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 November 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 423 (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 Professor Barrett's application for permission to notify a late appeal against a HMRC discovery assessment for 2014/15, filed about four months late. The Tribunal applied the Martland test, found the delay serious and unjustified, rejected the appellant's reliance on his solicitor's assurances as a good reason for delay, and refused permission to admit 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: high
The Tribunal applied the general rule that failures by a taxpayer's adviser will ordinarily be treated as failures by the taxpayer, so poor professional advice alone will not usually constitute a "good" reason to permit a late appeal; exceptions to that rule (for example where the taxpayer was actively misled or there were no warning signs) require clear and exceptional facts to be established.
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 decision observed (non-essentially) that it was unnecessary and unfair to name a law firm and partner who were not parties; that copying a taxpayer into correspondence which warned of statutory deadlines can amount to a "warning sign" reducing reliance on adviser assurances; and that prejudice to HMRC from admitting a late appeal can be relatively minimal but remains a relevant factor.