Mackin v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY APPEALS : Time to appeal - red diesel) [2018] UKFTT 110 (TC) (07 March 2018)

Mackin v Revenue and Customs (EXCISE DUTY APPEALS : Time to appeal - red diesel) [2018] UKFTT 110 (TC) (07 March 2018)

Permission for a late appeal was refused because the need for efficient litigation and enforcement of compliance with Tribunal rules outweighed the appellant’s explanations and the merits of the substantive appeal. There was no good explanation for the delay, no evidence of a valid appeal in 2012, and HMRC would suffer prejudice due to destruction of evidence. The stricter approach in BPP Holdings and guidance in McCarthy & Stone were followed.

Citation
[2018] UKFTT 110
Parties
Appellant: Patrick Mackin; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 March 2018
Procedural Posture
Excise Duty Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Out of Time
Outcome
Application for permission to appeal out of time refused
Legal Topics
Excise Duty, Wrongdoing Penalty, Late Appeal, Case Management, Tribunal Procedure
Tax Law Administrative Law Excise Duty Wrongdoing Penalty Late Appeal Case Management Tribunal Procedure

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Patrick Mackin

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Excise Duty Appeal / Application for Permission to Appeal Out of Time

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for a late appeal against excise duty and wrongdoing penalty assessments
  2. 2 Whether procedural jurisprudence under CPR 3.9 applies to tax tribunal extensions of time
  3. 3 Whether merits of the substantive appeal are relevant to the exercise of discretion

Ratio Decidendi

Permission for a late appeal was refused because the need for efficient litigation and enforcement of compliance with Tribunal rules outweighed the appellant’s explanations and the merits of the substantive appeal. There was no good explanation for the delay, no evidence of a valid appeal in 2012, and HMRC would suffer prejudice due to destruction of evidence. The stricter approach in BPP Holdings and guidance in McCarthy & Stone were followed.

Court Disposition

Application for permission to appeal out of time refused

Orders

  • Appeal not admitted
  • No further directions issued