Per Wimmer & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC

[2026] UKUT 223 (TCC)

Summary

Permission to appeal a discretionary refusal to admit a late tax appeal requires grounds disclosing an arguable error of law. An appellate tribunal should interfere with a case-management decision only on the limited grounds applicable to discretionary decisions; a different view of the balance is not enough. At the merits stage, only an obviously strong or weak case should materially affect the balance. Grave financial or regulatory consequences do not automatically outweigh lengthy unexplained delay, statutory time limits and the public interest in finality.

Factual background

Mr Per Wimmer and Wimmer Financial LLP sought permission to appeal the First-tier Tribunal’s decision of 10 July 2025 refusing to admit their late appeals against tax assessments and closure notices. The appeals were between 96 and 292 days late. The FTT found no good reason for the delay and concluded that finality and efficient conduct outweighed the prejudice to the applicants.

The Upper Tribunal had refused permission on paper. On oral renewal, Mr Wimmer relied principally on alleged errors in the tax assessments and the serious financial and regulatory consequences of refusing permission. The central question was whether those arguments disclosed an arguable error of law in the FTT’s exercise of discretion.

Held

  1. Permission refused. The grounds did not disclose an arguable error of law in the FTT’s decision.

  2. An appeal from the FTT lies only on a point of law under section 11 of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007. The decision whether to admit a late appeal was discretionary. Applying Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC) and Walbrook Trustees v Fattal and Ors [2008] EWCA 35 Civ 427, the Upper Tribunal could intervene only on the limited grounds for reviewing a discretionary case-management decision, including where the decision was so plainly wrong as to fall outside the generous ambit of the discretion.

  3. At the third stage of the Martland balancing exercise, the merits should materially affect the balance only if the case is obviously strong or weak. The remittance-basis argument required detailed factual investigation and was not self-evidently strong. Non-domiciled status did not itself exempt foreign income from UK tax unless remitted. For years after 2007–08, the remittance basis was not the default: entitlement depended on statutory conditions, including a valid claim under section 809B of the Income Tax Act 2007 or satisfaction of the conditions for automatic application under section 809D. Whether those conditions were met was left for factual investigation.

  4. The alleged double taxation was not apparent from the FTT’s findings. The LLP adjustments reallocated profit shares to Mr Wimmer; the materials did not show that the same income remained charged to the corporate member. Nor did the arguments about Wimmer Family Office Ltd establish that the dividend computations were obviously wrong: HMRC’s analysis involved multiple income sources, and that company was not itself a party to the appeals. The time-limit and estimated-assessment arguments likewise required factual examination and did not establish an arguable legal error.

  5. Serious financial consequences, including possible bankruptcy, and alleged loss of FCA authorisation did not require the FTT to admit the late appeals. The FTT had recognised the financial consequences; a specific case about regulatory loss had not been squarely put to it. Given the length of delay, lack of a good explanation, and interests of finality and efficiency, refusal remained within the range open to the FTT. The remaining grounds disclosed no arguable error for the reasons given in the paper refusal decision.

The court’s approach to earlier authorities

Available to signed-in members.

Appellate history

  1. Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) Permission was refused on paper on 11 March 2026. Following oral renewal, the Upper Tribunal again refused permission: [2026] UKUT 223 (TCC) .
  2. First-tier Tribunal On 10 July 2025, the FTT refused the applicants permission to bring their late appeals against the tax assessments and closure notices.

Key cases cited

2 authorities cited.

  • Walbrook Trustees v. Fattal and Ors [2008] EWCA 35 Civ 427
  • Martland v HMRC [2018] UKUT 178 (TCC)

Sign in to see how the court treated each authority. A free account is enough.

Cases citing this case

Available to signed-in members.