Elliot Schwarzea v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 15 January 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 28 (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 whether HMRC validly notified penalty notices to Mr Elliot Schwarzea at his last known address and whether late permission to appeal should be granted. The Tribunal found the Schedule 36 penalties were validly sent to Applewood Grove and the appellant’s appeals against those penalties were out of time, so permission for late appeal was refused. The Tribunal found the Schedule 24 penalty notices of 17 August 2018 were not validly notified because HMRC records had changed to Crantock Close before posting, so the Schedule 24 appeal was not late and permission was allowed insofar as necessary.
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
Service by post to the taxpayer’s last known residence constitutes valid notification only where that address was the address HMRC properly held at the relevant time; if HMRC’s contemporaneous records show a change of last known residence before posting, sending notices to a prior address may be ineffective so that an appeal is not out of time.
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 applied the Martland three-stage test for granting permission to make late appeals and commented on the relative weight of “compliance” factors, noting it reached the same outcome under alternative analytical approaches. It also observed that submissions about HMRC system entries are not themselves evidence and that factual conclusions should rely on correspondence and contemporaneous notes where there is no witness evidence.