Maqsood Hussain t/a Nisa Local v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 January 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 40 (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This case concerns Maqsood Hussain (t/a Nisa Local) seeking to reinstate a withdrawn 2018 VAT appeal and to bring very late appeals against penalty decisions and a January 2016 review decision. The Tribunal held that VATA s85 applied because the withdrawal was notified to the Tribunal and HMRC was informed, so the First Appeal was treated as determined and could not be reinstated; alternatively, a 2½‑year delay in seeking reinstatement was in any event too long. Permission to bring the late appeals against the penalties and the January 2016 decision was also refused for very long delays and no good reason (agent failings did not suffice).
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
Where an appellant (through an agent) withdraws an appeal by written notification to the Tribunal and the Tribunal notifies HMRC within the statutory period, VATA s85 can apply to treat the appeal as determined and thus prevent reinstatement; very long delays (measured in years) in seeking reinstatement or in bringing an appeal are “serious and significant” and, absent a good reason, justify refusal of permission; failings of advisers will generally be treated as the appellant’s failings and do not ordinarily amount to a good reason for missing statutory appeal deadlines.
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 noted (and corrected an earlier error) that reliance on advisers is a factor to be weighed but carries relatively little weight compared with the need to respect statutory time limits; it also observed that prejudice to HMRC, other taxpayers and tribunal resources are relevant considerations when refusing late permission. These remarks were explanatory rather than forming the binding basis of the decision.