Cranham Sports LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 18 April 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 373 (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
Cranham Sports LLP sought permission to bring a 60‑day late appeal against HMRC determinations and notices under the IR35 regime for 2014–2019 after HMRC issued an opinion and a "view of the matter" letter requiring review or appeal within 30 days. The First‑tier Tribunal applied the statutory 30‑day rule and the Martland/Denton test, found the delay serious and unexplained (professional representative’s failures being attributed to the applicant), and refused permission to bring the appeal out of time.
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 treated the statutory 30‑day limit in a "view of the matter" case as a strict time limit to be enforced; substantial unexplained delay will ordinarily be serious and significant. It also applied the principle that the acts or omissions of a taxpayer’s professional representative will ordinarily be assimilated to the taxpayer for purposes of deciding whether lateness is excused, absent a compelling excuse.
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 notes record observations that clear communication by HMRC of time limits is good administration and that, when deciding permission to extend time, the tribunal should generally avoid detailed merits assessment of the underlying appeal except where the merits are obviously strong or weak. These remarks appear advisory rather than central to the decision.
Warning
This chunk contains substantial repetition of the same text (duplicated passages), which may make navigation and extraction of facts less straightforward. The provided notes include substantial repetition and are limited to a single chunk; they may omit other parts of the judgment.