Ian Milhill v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 31 July 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 919 (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 case concerns whether HMRC's closure notices, a discovery assessment and multiple penalties for tax years 2014–19 were duly notified to Mr Milhill and whether the Tribunal should grant permission for late appeals. The Tribunal found the decisions were notified (either directly to Mr Milhill or via his agent) and refused permission to admit late appeals because the delays were serious, no good reason was shown, and reliance on agents did not excuse the delay. The HMRC decisions therefore stand and enforcement may resume.
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
Service by post which is properly addressed, prepaid and posted is prima facie effective and is rebuttable only if the addressee proves non-receipt on the balance of probabilities; notices sent to an agent with actual authority are effective as service on the principal; and a taxpayer who furnishes an address as if it were their own may be estopped from denying notification. Applying the three-stage test for late appeals (length/seriousness of delay, reasons for delay, and overall fairness/other factors), serious and unexplained delay and reliance on advisers ordinarily will not justify 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 expressed that heavy weight should be given to respecting statutory time limits and to conducting litigation efficiently and at proportionate cost when deciding late-appeal applications, and indicated that failings by a litigant’s advisers will generally be treated as failings of the litigant in such applications.