Raymond Atkinson v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 7 April 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 414 (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 First-tier Tribunal refused Mr Raymond Atkinson permission to pursue late appeals against 12 tax surcharges and penalties (total £3,575.24) dating from 2012–2015, finding very long delays (over 3½ to almost 12 years) and that he had been aware of HMRC correspondence. The Tribunal held his personal and business difficulties did not reasonably excuse the whole period of delay and had ceased to do so by the end of 2014, so the late appeals were not admitted.

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 has received HMRC correspondence and had prior contacts or appeals, long unexplained delay is a strong factor against granting permission for late appeals; personal misfortunes can justify some delay but must reasonably explain the entire period of delay and are no longer a good reason once the appellant is able to manage the relevant affairs.

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 observed limited prejudice to HMRC beyond loss of documents from the lengthy delay, emphasised the public importance of complying with statutory time limits and efficient litigation, and noted it could not determine the underlying merits due to lack of contemporaneous evidence.