Preston Benson v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 March 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 304 (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 case concerns two applications by Mr Preston Benson: to be added or substituted as appellant in a VAT notice of refusal (NOR) appeal that Peckham Levels Ltd (PLL) had withdrawn, and for permission under s.49 TMA to notify a late appeal against a joint PAYE/NICs NOR. The Tribunal held PLL’s VAT NOR was properly issued to PLL alone, PLL’s unopposed withdrawal operated (under VATA s.85(4)) to uphold HMRC’s decision so the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to add or substitute Mr Benson, and refused permission for the c.7‑month late PAYE/NICs appeal after finding the delay serious and the public interest and prejudice to HMRC outweighed Mr Benson’s reasons.
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 decision establishes that where a taxpayer withdraws a VAT appeal and HMRC do not object, that withdrawal can operate under VATA s.85(4) as effectively upholding HMRC’s decision and removes scope to add or substitute a new appellant in that appeal; and that, on a s.49 TMA application, the Tribunal exercises a broad discretion to weigh length and reasons for delay against prejudice and the public interest in time limits, with substantial unexplained delay normally weighing against granting permission.
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 observed that an HMRC acknowledgement e‑mail stating representations have been “noted” may reasonably be construed as those representations being under consideration but does not relieve an appellant of the duty to follow up if no substantive response is received; and that lack of professional legal advice or litigating in person are weak explanations for long delays, while the prospect of additional litigation, delay to related criminal proceedings and resource burdens on HMRC are relevant factors in the balancing exercise on s.49 applications.
Warning
The chunk contains substantial repetition and duplicated passages, which can make extraction of distinct points more Notes include substantial repetition and duplicated passages and may not capture the full judgment text.