Aaron Treliving v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 5 July 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 591 (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
The First-tier Tribunal refused Mr Aaron Treliving’s application to accept a late appeal against HMRC assessments and penalties for the HICBC for 2014/15–2019/20, finding his undated appeal was received over nine months late. The Tribunal concluded correspondence including notice of appeal rights had been sent to the correct address and the appellant was or should have been aware of the 30‑day appeal requirement; a difficult pregnancy might have excused delay up to the birth but did not justify the subsequent five months, and "life got in the way" was not an objectively reasonable excuse. Even if a reasonable excuse existed for part of the period, the appellant did not remediate the default without unreasonable further delay. The application to accept the late appeal was therefore dismissed.
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
Where statutory appeal notices are sent to the correct address and likely received, ignorance of the 30‑day appeal deadline will not ordinarily constitute a reasonable excuse; personal caring responsibilities or general life pressures, without stronger supporting evidence, will likewise not normally be an objectively reasonable excuse for prolonged failure to comply with appeal time limits.
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 Tribunal indicated that treating a high‑risk pregnancy as a continuing reasonable excuse beyond the date of birth would require more detailed medical or other evidence, and that a taxpayer’s attributes (education, professional role) and receipt of guidance materials are relevant factors in assessing the reasonableness of ignorance or delay.