First-tier Tribunal (Tax)

Both parties wished to proceed with the hearing of the application;

Given two incidents of non-attendance, a further adjournment was unlikely to result in the successful attendance of Mr Abiona;

We had documentary evidence in front of us that supported at least some of the points that Ms De'Roy Badejo wished to make by means of questioning Mr Abiona;

Ms De'Roy Badejo's health issues (to which we return later in this decision) mean that expecting continued attendance at hearings for the same issue would be an unnecessary burden on her.

establish the length of the delay and whether it is serious and/or significant;

establish the reason(s) why the delay occurred; and

evaluate all the circumstances of the case, using a balancing exercise to assess the merits of the reason(s) given for the delay and the prejudice which would be caused to both parties by granting or refusing permission, and in doing so take into account "the particular importance of the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost, and for statutory time limits to be respected".

She believed that her agent, Mr Anthony Abiona, had, according to her instructions, submitted an appeal against the 2013 assessment within the time limit;

She believed this because he told her, repeatedly, that he had done so;

When she became aware, due to correspondence from HMRC stating that they had not received the appeal, she had followed up with Mr Abiona, who again asserted that he had made the appeal;

When HMRC continued to state that they had not received it, she had requested that Mr Abiona make a renewed/refiled late appeal;

She had not sought to change her adviser when it became apparent to her that Mr Abiona was failing in his duties to her because:

She had already paid him to do it and she did not have additional funds to pay for it again;

he had all of her records and was not forthcoming in providing them back to her; and

she was suffering from significant physical and mental ill-health which she was prioritising, making it difficult for her to pursue alternative options, including finding another agent or submitting the appeal herself.

The delay of over 4 years from the expiry of the time limit to the submission of the late appeal is serious and significant;

No explanation of the lateness was given in the letter submitted to HMRC in 2017;

HMRC informed Ms De'Roy Badejo on a number of occasions that no appeal had been received by them and that any appeal would need to explain the reasons for the delay;

She should have changed her agent when it became apparent that there was a problem, particularly in light of the fact that Mr Abiona had not provided her with any concrete evidence of the submission of an appeal;

In the evaluation of all other matters, HMRC highlighted that:

Time limits had not been met by Ms De'Roy Badejo;

To allow the application would result in a diversion of resources away from other taxpayers and their disputes, particularly given the original case worker had moved on from the department; and

The Appellant's case, based on the evidence provided in the notice of appeal, is weak, in particular:

Insufficient evidence is provided of the enhancement works carried out on the property; and

The issue of the conveyancing solicitor having stolen the funds from the sale of the property is not relevant to the calculation of the capital gain and is only potentially relevant to the calculation of interest, which is not within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.