Robert Crawford v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 October 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 957 (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 Tribunal considered late appeals and HMRC's strike-out applications in relation to many penalty assessments for tax years c.1999/2000–2016/2017. The Tribunal found the appeals were out of time but granted permission to bring two appeals late under the Martland test, rejected HMRC’s contention that an Unless Order automatically struck the appeals out because the May 2023 Documents (with qualifications and explanation) complied with Direction 1(c), and made case management directions including disclosure of the DAS allocation and an agreed list of live penalties. The appellant is precluded from challenging specified line items.
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
From the judgment as reflected in the notes: statutory appeal time limits run from the date a penalty assessment/determination is issued and are not displaced by uncertainty about the underlying tax issue, although such uncertainty may be a factor in exercising discretion to permit late appeals; and the presumption of service by post can be rebutted by credible evidence that notices were not properly served, which is relevant to the exercise of the tribunal’s discretion on late permission and compliance with procedural directions.
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: low
The Tribunal observed (non-bindingly) that where tax-geared penalties depend on allocation of payments or losses, fairness may require detailed scrutiny and potentially ADR or cooperative case management, and that practical compliance with directions can be acceptable where essential inputs (e.g. DAS allocation) are unknown but properly explained.