Remiglio di Lellio v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 4 September 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 1071 (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 Mr Remiglio di Lellio's applications for permission to bring multiple appeals out of time against HMRC discovery assessments, closure notices, inaccuracy penalties and two personal liability notices (PLNs). The Tribunal found delays of six to seven years and refused permission to appeal late, concluding Mr Di Lellio's reliance on his accountant was not a sufficient "good reason" given HMRC's clear correspondence that no appeals had been lodged and that the substantive case was weak on the evidence. The Tribunal did not determine whether the PLNs remain payable after HMRC withdrew related company assessments.
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's ratio is that reliance on an adviser will not normally constitute a "good reason" for missing statutory appeal deadlines unless the taxpayer can show they took reasonable steps a person in their position would have taken; where HMRC has expressly notified a taxpayer that no appeal has been made, a reasonable taxpayer must verify an adviser's contrary claim.
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 (obiter) that procedural irregularities in filing an application before entitlement may be capable of being waived under the Tribunal Rules if statutory prerequisites are otherwise satisfied and it is just to do so, and that weight may properly be limited for witness evidence which has not been tested at hearing because the witness did not attend for cross‑examination.
Warning
This chunk is repetitive and contains some internal inconsistencies (eg an early stray sentence suggesting permission was given) but the Tribunal's clear final decision in the body was to refuse permission to appeal late. notes are somewhat repetitive and contain minor inconsistencies; they do not include full reasoning on the PLNs, which the Tribunal left undecided.