York Burton Lane Club and Institute Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 7 November 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 406 (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 five linked applications for permission under s.84(6) VATA to bring appeals against protective VAT assessments out of time, arising from the Rank litigation about VAT on gaming machines. The appellants appealed some 8–9 years late; the tribunal applied a three-stage approach (length of delay; reasons for delay; all circumstances including prejudice and merits) and found the delays were serious and unjustified. Although the appellants’ substantive cases appeared strong and HMRC would suffer limited prejudice, the tribunal refused permission to bring the late appeals. The tribunal also rejected the appellants’ argument that HMRC’s differing treatment of taxpayers with existing appeals compared to those without was unlawfully discriminatory.
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
Permission to bring appeals out of time under s.84(6) VATA should be determined by assessing (1) the length of the delay, (2) the reason for the delay, and (3) all the circumstances including prejudice and the merits, giving substantial weight to statutory appeal time limits and finality; a very long, unexplained breach of the statutory appeal period can justify refusing permission even where the substantive case is strong.
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 skepticism about HMRC’s assertion of staleness prejudice where HMRC had previously received and evaluated material when making repayments; and commented that it is generally inappropriate to blame HMRC for not issuing earlier appealable decisions where claimants or their advisers delayed engagement, as claimants have a duty to pursue appeals.