Automated Summary
Key Facts
Ms Murgasanu failed to file her 2016-17 tax return by the paper deadline (31 October 2017) or the online deadline (31 January 2018). HMRC issued penalties totaling £1,300, including a £100 penalty on 13 February 2018, daily penalties of £900 on 31 July 2018, and a six-month penalty of £300 on 10 August 2018. Ms Murgasanu filed her return online on 20 November 2018, over 10 months late. Her appeal against the £100 penalty was submitted on 28 January 2019, 321 days after the 30-day statutory deadline. The Tribunal found she did not file the return by post in October 2017, lacked evidence of timely filing, and did not contact HMRC to dispute penalties until after the filing deadline. The Tribunal concluded her appeal was hopeless and refused permission to proceed late.
Tax Type
Income tax on self-assessment return
Issues
- The Tribunal evaluated Ms Murgasanu's claim that she filed her 2016-17 return by post on 26 October 2017. It found no evidence to support this, including lack of HMRC records or supporting documentation, and concluded she filed electronically on 20 November 2018, over 10 months late. This factual determination underpinned the refusal to grant late appeal permission.
- The Tribunal considered whether to grant Ms Murgasanu permission to appeal HMRC's penalties for late filing her 2016-17 tax return after exceeding the 30-day statutory time limit. Key factors included the length of the delay (321 days for the £100 penalty), her failure to provide evidence of timely filing, and the application of principles from Martland v HMRC and HMRC v Katib regarding the importance of respecting statutory time limits and the strength of her appeal grounds.
Tax Years
- 2016
- 2017
Holdings
The Tribunal refused permission to make a late appeal against penalties for late submission of the 2016-17 tax return, finding the delay was serious and significant (321 days for the £100 penalty), there was no reasonable excuse for the delay, and the appeal lacked merit as the appellant had not filed the return by the statutory deadline. The decision emphasized the importance of respecting statutory time limits and noted that granting permission would prejudice the efficient conduct of litigation.
Remedies
The Tribunal refused permission for Ms Murgasanu to make her appeal against the late filing penalties after the statutory time limit. This decision was based on the serious and significant delay (321 days for the first penalty) and the lack of reasonable excuse, as well as the absence of evidence demonstrating she had filed her return by the required deadline.
Tax Issue Category
Other
Legal Principles
The case centered on the application of the burden of proof in late appeal scenarios. The Tribunal held that the appellant must demonstrate she filed her tax return by the deadline, which she did not establish with sufficient evidence. This aligns with the principle that litigants bear the responsibility to prove their case when seeking exceptions to statutory time limits.
Precedent Name
- Romasave v HMRC
- HMRC v Katib
- BPP Holdings Limited v HMRC
- Martland v HMRC
Cited Statute
- Finance Act 2009
- Taxes Management Act 1970
- Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
Penalty Amount
1300.00
Judge Name
Anne Redston
Passage Text
- 33. Taking into account all the circumstances, I therefore decided not to give Ms Murgasanu permission to make her appeal late.
- 19. It is for Ms Murgasanu to prove her case. Given the absence of any supporting documents; the lack of any explanation of her behaviour between February 2018 when the first penalty was issued and the filing of her return electronically in November 2018, and HMRC's own evidence that they had no record of the return having been received, I find as a fact that Ms Murgasanu did not file her return by post in October 2017. Instead, she filed it online on 20 November 2018.
- 29. Ms Murgasanu's delay in appealing was 321 days for the £100 penalty, 153 days for the daily penalties and 143 days for the six month penalty. These delays are much longer than the three month period considered in Romasave, so are clearly serious and significant.