In a recent tribunal case, Mr Jit Panesar, a taxpayer embroiled in an eight-year dispute with HMRC over late filing penalties, faced a significant setback as the First-Tier Tribunal Tax Chamber ruled against him. The tribunal's decision, released on May 15, 2024, highlighted the importance of adhering to statutory deadlines and the challenges of appealing decisions long after the fact.
The Case Overview
The case centred on Mr. Panesar's failure to submit his 2012/2013 income tax return on time. HMRC issued a notice to file the return on April 6, 2013, but Mr Panesar’s paper return was not received until October 31, 2022. Consequently, HMRC imposed late filing penalties totalling £1,600, with penalty notices sent in February 2014, August 2014, and February 2015. However, Mr. Panesar did not file an appeal until July 2022, over eight years after the first penalty was issued.
The Tribunal’s Decision
The tribunal, led by Tribunal Judge Nigel Popplewell and Miss Jane Shillaker, was tasked with deciding whether to allow Mr Panesar’s late appeal and, if permitted, whether the appeal against the penalties should be upheld. Unfortunately for Mr Panesar, the tribunal dismissed both his application to bring a late appeal and his substantive appeal against the penalties.
Key Findings
The tribunal acknowledged Mr Panesar's argument that he believed he had successfully submitted his tax return online on January 31, 2014. He contended that the return was lost in HMRC’s system due to multiple website crashes that evening. Despite this, the tribunal found that Mr Panesar’s failure to receive an electronic receipt for the submission should have alerted him that his return had not been successfully filed.
Moreover, the tribunal noted that after moving to Cyprus shortly after the filing deadline, Mr Panesar left no forwarding address for his mail, resulting in his ignorance of the penalty notices sent to his UK address. Upon his return to the UK in 2017, Mr Panesar did not promptly address the accumulated correspondence, which included the penalty notices.
A Long Delay and Weak Excuses
In assessing the length and reasons for the delay in appealing, the tribunal determined that the eight-year gap was both serious and significant. They were not persuaded by Mr Panesar's explanations, noting that he should have checked his submission status and the tax situation upon returning from Cyprus. The tribunal emphasized that an objectively reasonable taxpayer would have realized the return was not filed successfully and taken corrective action sooner.
No Reasonable Excuse
Despite considering whether Mr Panesar had a reasonable excuse or if there were special circumstances that warranted leniency, the tribunal concluded that neither applied. Mr Panesar’s failure to verify his submission, despite being aware of HMRC’s website issues, was deemed insufficient as a reasonable excuse.
Final Verdict
The tribunal’s decision underscores the critical importance of promptly addressing tax obligations and the significant consequences of failing to meet deadlines. Mr Panesar must now settle the £1,600 penalties, with the tribunal ruling firmly against his attempt to overturn them. This case serves as a stark reminder of the stringent requirements for filing appeals and the challenges of contesting penalties after such an extended delay.