Rose v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE : Income tax) [2019] UKFTT 308 (TC) (10 May 2019)

Rose v Revenue & Customs (PROCEDURE : Income tax) [2019] UKFTT 308 (TC) (10 May 2019)

The delay of 245 days was serious and significant. Mr Rose did not provide a good explanation for the delay, as he took no action after receiving closure notices that clearly set out his appeal rights. Lack of professional advice and being a lay person are not sufficient excuses. The prejudice to HMRC and the public interest in upholding statutory time limits outweighs the prejudice to Mr Rose. The possible merits of Mr Rose’s case are not strong enough to justify granting permission for a late appeal.

Citation
[2019] UKFTT 308
Parties
Appellant: Tony Rose; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 May 2019
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal) / Application for Permission to Make Late Notification of Appeals
Outcome
Permission for late notification of appeals refused.
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Late Appeals, Tribunal Procedure, Time Limits
Tax Law Civil Procedure Income Tax Late Appeals Tribunal Procedure Time Limits

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tony Rose

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal (first Tier Tribunal) / Application for Permission to Make Late Notification of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether permission should be granted for late notification of appeals against amendments to self-assessment tax returns for 2015-2016 and 2016-2017.

Ratio Decidendi

The delay of 245 days was serious and significant. Mr Rose did not provide a good explanation for the delay, as he took no action after receiving closure notices that clearly set out his appeal rights. Lack of professional advice and being a lay person are not sufficient excuses. The prejudice to HMRC and the public interest in upholding statutory time limits outweighs the prejudice to Mr Rose. The possible merits of Mr Rose’s case are not strong enough to justify granting permission for a late appeal.

Court Disposition

Permission for late notification of appeals refused.