§ Mr. Blairasked the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many applications have been made to the Board of Inland Revenue for the out-of-time admission of an election under the provisions of section 154(2) of the Taxes Act 1970; in how many cases the late election was accepted; and in what circumstances such late elections are accepted;
(2) how many applications have been made to the Board of Inland Revenue for the out-of-time admission of a claim under the provisions of section 264 of the Taxes Act 1970; in how many cases the late claim was accepted; and in what circumstances such late claims are accepted.
§ Mr. Moore[pursuant to his replies, 6 December 1985, c. 355–56About 150 applications are made annually for the out-of-time admission of elections under section 154(2) of the Taxes Act 1970; of these about half are accepted. In relation to claims under section 264 of the Taxes Act 1970, the comparable figure is about 50 applications annually of which about one third are accepted.
In cases where no statutory discretion is given to the Board of Inland Revenue to extend a time limit for a claim or election, it must be assumed that Parliament's intention is that the limit should be applied strictly, and the number of cases in which it would be appropriate to exercise discretion under the board's powers of care and management (provided in the Taxes Management Act 1970) is correspondingly limited. Every such case has to be considered individually on its own merits, and in the light of all the factors relevant to the circumstances in which the claim was made late. However, there would be a presumption in favour of admitting a late claim where there has been a relevant error on the part of the Inland Revenue, and the claim is made shortly after the error has been drawn to the taxpayer's attention; where a taxpayer has given clear notice of his intention to claim, but before the time limit expires he has not completed any statutory requirement or specified the claim in sufficient detail; or where the reason for the delay in making the claim was clearly beyond the taxpayer's control (for example because he—or in the case of a company the only individual who had the relevant information and experience—was seriously ill and there was no one else who could reasonably be expected to stand in his shoes).