Rajab Ali Zafari v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 12 June 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 749 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 Tribunal dismissed Mr Zafari’s application for permission to appeal out of time against HMRC closure notices, assessments and penalties, finding a 2 years 7 months 24 days delay for which no good reason was shown. Central issues were whether the s118(2) TMA “reasonable excuse” concept displaced the usual s49 out‑of‑time permission process and whether reliance on accountants, poor English, caring responsibilities or HMRC delay justified the lateness; the Tribunal held they did not. The Tribunal applied the established three‑stage (Denton) balancing approach and refused permission.

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 decision indicates that s118(2) TMA does not displace the ordinary s49 permission-to‑appeal process and that tribunals should apply the established three‑stage balancing approach (derived from Denton and Upper Tribunal guidance) when deciding out‑of‑time permission applications; reliance on advisers or caring responsibilities will not constitute a “good reason” for lengthy delay absent clear evidence the appellant was incapable of acting or had taken reasonable steps to secure representation.

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 suggested that a witness statement that merely repeats another person’s account and is not subject to cross‑examination may attract little weight, and that minor numerical or procedural errors in HMRC correspondence (here a circa £600 effect) are unlikely by themselves to outweigh a substantial delay when deciding permission.