Mohammed Akrami v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 27 September 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 867 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: low
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: low
This case concerned applications for permission to admit three late appeals against various HMRC penalties and a Preliminary Loss Notice, with a fourth appeal staying. Applying the Martland three-stage approach, the Tribunal found the delays (70 days to 4+ years) substantial, the appellant’s explanations (ill health and adviser failures) insufficiently supported, and the substantive cases weak such that admitting them would prejudice HMRC. The applications to notify the Second, Third and Fourth Appeals late were refused and the appeals were not admitted.
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 Martland framework: (1) assess the length of the delay, (2) examine reasons for the default (requiring evidence that explanations like ill health had a functional impact and that adviser failures actually misled the appellant), and (3) balance all circumstances including prejudice to the respondent and the merits of the appeal. Substantial unexplained delay together with weak prospects and likely prejudice justifies refusal to admit late appeals.
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 change of advisers or shortcomings by advisers will generally count against a litigant and are unlikely to justify delay absent evidence the taxpayer was misled. It also noted that suspension of penalties under Schedule 24 depends on taxpayer compliance at the end of the suspension and that paragraph 14(5)(b) does not itself give a right of appeal against the operation of the suspension provision.