Seth Moffett Russell & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 6 December 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 1096 (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 concerned an application for permission to notify late appeals against an HMRC Notice of Requirement for security for PAYE/NICs issued to Avenir EMS Ltd. The Tribunal applied the three-stage Martland/Denton approach, found a serious delay of over six months, no good reason for the delay, and that the substantive appeals were very weak. Balancing the factors, the Tribunal refused permission to notify the appeals late and dismissed the application; related criminal proceedings against Mr Russell will resume.
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 applied the established three-stage approach to late notification under s49 TMA: (1) assess the length and seriousness of the delay, (2) consider the reasons for the delay, and (3) balance all relevant circumstances, giving particular weight to statutory time limits and efficient litigation; a weak merits case (including that HMRC acted reasonably at the time of the NoR) is a relevant factor against granting permission.
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 judgment includes observations that a Tribunal assessing an NoR under PAYE provisions has supervisory jurisdiction over the reasonableness of the NoR at the time it was issued but appellate jurisdiction on the quantum of security (so subsequent events may be relevant to quantum). It also comments that permitting a plainly hopeless late appeal would not be in the interests of justice because it would waste tribunal resources and delay enforcement and prosecution.