- The Upper Tribunal allowed an appeal against the FTT’s refusal to admit a late appeal concerning VAT penalties and personal liability notices.
- The UT found the previous approach in applying Martland and Katib for late appeals was incorrect.
- The appeal succeeded on four grounds, with Ground 3 highlighting insufficient reasons given by the FTT for its decision.
- The UT concluded that the FTT did not adequately explain its reasoning or consider disapplying the general rule in Katib.
- Ground 4 was controversial, questioning the legality of the general rule in Katib and Martland.
- The judges were split on Ground 4, but Marcus Smith J allowed the appeal, stating the Upper Tribunal’s approach was not justified by the terms of section 83G(6) VATA.
- The decision emphasized that the FTT should have discretion based on the old CPR 3.9 and guidance from Data Select and Aberdeen City.
Source: claritaxnews.com
Note that this post was (partially) written with the help of AI. It is always useful to review the original source material, and where needed to obtain (local) advice from a specialist.
