Ibrahim Amir v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 4 July 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 589 (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 an application for permission to bring an out-of-time appeal against HMRC’s 20 July 2022 revaluation decision and a C18 demand for £28,924.27. The Tribunal applied its three-stage test (length of delay; reasons for default; balancing all circumstances) and found a 122-day delay serious, rejected the appellant’s explanations (non-receipt, caring responsibilities, lack of understanding), found the appeal weak, and refused permission to appeal late. The appellant may seek permission to appeal the Tribunal’s refusal under Rule 39.
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 applied and endorsed a three-stage discretionary test when considering admission of late appeals: (1) assess the length and seriousness of the delay; (2) consider the reasons for default and whether they constitute a good explanation; and (3) balance all relevant circumstances including prejudice and finality. The decision holds that a substantial delay, properly addressed correspondence not returned undelivered, and inadequate explanations justify refusal to admit 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 (non-bindingly) that failures by a taxpayer’s representative will generally be treated as the taxpayer’s failure and rarely constitute good reason for missing statutory deadlines, and that continued trading and access to business addresses during the period may undermine claims that personal circumstances prevented compliance with time limits.