David Oakes v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 November 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 413 (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 late appeals against multiple VAT and income tax notices where HMRC issued a bankruptcy petition in mid-2018. The tribunal held that service of the appealable notices was likely effective and that the bankruptcy petition put the appellant/agents on notice from 23 July 2018, so the long delay to September 2020 was not a good reason for lateness; failures by the appellant’s former agents and their employees were attributed to the appellant. Permission to appeal late was refused for the income tax matters and for VAT matters apparent from the petition, and granted only for those VAT matters not set out in the petition, with directions to identify which matters those are.
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 the Martland three-stage test and affirmed that where correctly addressed postal copies are produced with no return, the presumption of regularity of postal service is not displaced absent contrary evidence; and that failings by an agent’s employees will ordinarily be attributed to the taxpayer unless the employee’s conduct is so exceptional as to fall outside the employer’s responsibility. These principles formed the basis for refusing permission in most of the late appeals.
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 commented that if a bankruptcy petition does not sufficiently disclose the appealable decisions, delay while obtaining details can constitute a good reason for lateness, and that lodging a prompt protective appeal on receipt of a petition would improve a taxpayer’s position — observations not necessary to the primary disposal.