Laurence Onwufuju v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 January 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 52 (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 appeal concerned a 47-day-late challenge to a Personal Liability Notice (PLN) issued to Mr Onwufuju in respect of a £1,712,097.10 company penalty relating to Webstar Dixon Ltd’s undeclared VAT. The tribunal found the PLN had been posted in April 2022 to the correct address, the appellant’s appeal was therefore out of time, and his account of non-receipt and lack of knowledge was not credible. Permission to bring the late appeal was refused and the judge said that, if permission had been granted, the substantive appeal would have been struck out as having only fanciful prospects of success.
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 (1) the presumption that properly addressed, prepaid and posted items are effectively served unless the addressee proves non-receipt on the balance of probabilities, and (2) the strike-out test that an appeal should be dismissed if it has no realistic (as opposed to fanciful) prospect of success; lack of primary evidence for claimed input tax and expiry of statutory time limits are strong indicators that a substantive appeal lacks realistic prospects.
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 a company’s later error correction and payment do not remove the company’s liability to account for output VAT or negate the basis for a company penalty/PLN, and that considerations of litigation efficiency, proportionality and respect for statutory time limits weigh against permitting late appeals—particularly where the appellant has prior tax litigation experience.