Ghenadie Bejan v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 24 October 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 950 (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 challenged a personal liability notice (PLN) issued to Mr Bejan under para 19 Schedule 24 FA 2007 on grounds of non‑receipt and lack of English comprehension, and sought to bring the appeal late. The Tribunal found the PLNs were properly addressed and posted and therefore deemed served, rejected the Article 6/translation complaint because HMRC could assume English comprehension and reliance on professional advisers was reasonable, and refused permission to admit the late appeal as the delay was substantial and unexplained.
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 Tribunal treated properly posted statutory notices as presumed delivered in the ordinary course of post for purposes of Schedule 24 FA 2007 (read with VATA and para 27), and held that service in English does not breach Article 6 ECHR where HMRC had no reason to know the recipient did not understand English and the recipient had professional advisers; accordingly, an unexplained substantial delay in seeking to appeal justifies refusing permission to bring a late appeal.
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 Article 6 protections apply with a margin of appreciation in tax/penalty matters (less stringent than for core criminal matters), that recipients can request translations and delay caused by translation can justify extending appeal time, and that failings of professional advisers are generally attributed to the client unless there is a serious dereliction of duty.