Judgment summary
This is a decision of the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) on Lindsey Prodger's application for permission to bring a late appeal against High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) assessments for the tax years ended 5 April 2019 and 5 April 2020, and associated failure to notify penalties under Schedule 41 of the Finance Act 2008 (1).
The Appellant did not attend the hearing on 2 October 2026. The Tribunal decided to proceed in his absence under Rule 33 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009, and then dismissed the application for permission to make a late appeal (1, 29, 50).
Background
On 5 March 2021, HMRC wrote to the Appellant stating that because his income exceeded £50,000 in the tax years to 5 April 2019 and 5 April 2020, and Child Benefit had been received, he was liable to HICBC of £1,076 for each year, his estimated income being £62,341 and £69,074 respectively (3).
On 5 May 2021, HMRC made assessments under section 29 TMA 1970 for £1,076 per year and charged failure to notify penalties of £290.52 for 2019 and £258.24 for 2020 under Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008 (4, 5).
The Appellant appealed to HMRC on 15 May 2021, disputing the timing of HMRC's notification, the need to file self-assessment, and the inclusion of a company car (described as a Volkswagen demonstration vehicle) as a taxable benefit (6).
On 10 June 2021, HMRC issued a view of the matter letter, reducing the penalties to £215.20 for 2019 and £107.60 for 2020, and offering a review or an appeal to the Tribunal within 30 days (7). Neither step was taken within that period, and HMRC treated the appeal as settled under section 54(1) TMA 1970 on 7 September 2022 (8, 10).
On 21 January 2025, HMRC sent a statement of liabilities and referred the case to a debt collection agency. The Appellant then corresponded with HMRC and submitted an SA370 appeal form, leading to cancellation of some late filing penalties for 2021 and 2022, though the HICBC assessments, late payment penalties and interest remained (11–14).
On 15 September 2025, the Appellant submitted a notice of appeal to the Tribunal, which was unclear as to the decisions under appeal and included grounds concerning the company car benefit, the time taken by HMRC, and financial hardship (15).
HMRC applied on 17 March 2026 for further and better particulars, identifying the HICBC Assessments, the Failure to Notify Penalties, and four Schedule 56 late payment penalties of £53 each as potentially appealable decisions (16).
Following a telephone discussion on 8 July 2026 and an HMRC letter of the same date, HMRC and the Appellant reached agreement on the substantive HICBC issues, late payment penalties and interest, which the Appellant confirmed he accepted (19–21). The Appellant's email of 9 July 2026 nonetheless raised further points about the company car and timing of HMRC's findings (22).
The Tribunal issued directions on 10 July 2026 for a hearing of the late appeal application, requiring witness statements, document lists and skeleton arguments by specified dates. The Appellant did not comply with these directions and did not attend the hearing on 2 October 2026, informing Tribunal staff by telephone that he was working in Hereford and could not confirm receipt of the hearing notification (23–27).
Core dispute
The core question was whether the Tribunal should grant the Appellant permission to bring a late appeal against the HICBC Assessments and the Failure to Notify Penalties, given that the statutory 30 day appeal period following HMRC's letter of 10 June 2021 had long expired (31, 36).
A preliminary issue was whether the Tribunal should proceed with the hearing in the Appellant's absence under Rule 33 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (28–29).
The precise scope of any remaining substantive dispute was unclear, since HMRC and the Appellant had reached agreement on the substantive HICBC issues, late payment penalties and interest, though the Appellant's correspondence suggested he still disputed inclusion of a company car benefit in his income (21, 31).
Court findings
The Tribunal found that reasonable steps had been taken to notify the Appellant of the hearing, by email to the address he had used, and that it was in the interests of justice to proceed in his absence, given the lack of a sufficient reason for his absence, the long delay in bringing the appeal, the agreement reached on substantive issues, the apparently low value of residual issues, and non-compliance with directions (29).
Applying the three-stage test from Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC), the Tribunal found the delay to be over four years, from 9 July 2021 (30 days after the 10 June 2021 letter) to 15 September 2025, which it described as a very significant and serious period (37–39, 46).
The Tribunal found that the Appellant had not established good reasons for the delay. He provided no witness statement in breach of directions, did not attend to give oral evidence, and the papers did not disclose clear reasons. His claim not to have received the 10 June 2021 letter was unsupported by direct evidence, and that letter had been sent to the same address he later used in his notice of appeal (47).
In the balancing exercise, the Tribunal held that the balance weighed overwhelmingly against allowing the late appeal, having regard to the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and at proportionate cost and for statutory time limits to be respected, as confirmed in HMRC v Medpro Healthcare Ltd [2026] EWCA Civ 14 (40, 43, 48).
The Tribunal noted that while there would be prejudice to the Appellant if permission were refused, the material before it did not establish that the consequences outweighed the countervailing factors, and it did not consider the merits of the underlying appeal to be so obviously strong as to favour granting permission (48–49).
Outcome
The Tribunal decided to proceed with the hearing in the Appellant's absence under Rule 33 (29).
The Tribunal refused the Appellant's application for permission to bring a late appeal (50).
Major issues / areas of contention
- Whether the Tribunal should proceed with the hearing in the Appellant's absence under Rule 33 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009
- Whether the Appellant should be granted permission to bring a late appeal against the HICBC Assessments for 2019 and 2020
- Whether the Appellant should be granted permission to bring a late appeal against the Failure to Notify Penalties under Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008
- The length of the delay in bringing the appeal, found to be over four years
- Whether the Appellant had established good reasons for the delay
- The application of the three-stage Martland test and the balancing exercise, including the need for litigation to be conducted efficiently and for statutory time limits to be respected
- Whether a company car should have been included as a taxable benefit in calculating adjusted net income for HICBC purposes