Lost in Translation? Tribunal Says “Nice Try” to Taxpayer’s Language Barrier Defence

In a tale of tax troubles that’s hard not to misunderstand, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) recently dismissed a taxpayer’s attempt to dodge a personal liability notice (PLN) on the grounds of an alleged language barrier.

In Bejan v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 00950 (TCC), taxpayer Ghenadie Bejan argued that because the notice was issued in English—a language he claimed not to comprehend—it violated his human rights.

But the Tribunal found that a language loophole is no match for HMRC’s diligence.

A Litany of Lost Letters (and Lost Causes)

The saga kicked off in May 2021 when HMRC issued a PLN to Mr Bejan’s company address, followed by another to his home address, and yet another reminder in March 2022.

Finally, after a year of radio silence, HMRC escalated to insolvency proceedings.

By January 2023, Bejan’s agent managed to speak with an HMRC officer, who mentioned the possibility of a late appeal.

Seizing the opportunity, Bejan argued—18 months after the original notice—that the language of the notices had left him entirely in the dark.

The Language Barrier That’s Conveniently “Lost in Translation”

Bejan’s appeal relied heavily on the claim that he could not understand English, rendering all English-only notices a breach of his rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

However, the FTT saw through this reasoning with HMRC’s counsel pointing to Bejan’s own witness statements where he had purportedly held conversations in English with HMRC, casting serious doubt on his claimed language limitations.

Tangents and Tall Tales

Adding a curious twist, Bejan’s solicitor, Mr Akram, tried to bolster his client’s case by alleging flaws in HMRC’s postal service, possibly linking it to the controversial Fujitsu-run system responsible for the Post Office Horizon scandal.

But under cross-examination, Akram had to concede that he actually knew nothing of HMRC’s postal processes in this specific case. The Tribunal quickly dismissed these claims as speculative and irrelevant.

“Too Little, Too Late”—The Final Verdict

Ultimately, the FTT found no basis for HMRC to have anticipated a language barrier, especially given Bejan had previously signed English-language company documents.

The FTT noted that his supposed language issues were only raised well after the fact, with no prior request for translation or special communication measures.

The appeal was rejected, with the Tribunal concluding that Bejan’s claim was simply too late and too far-fetched.

The Bottom Line: No Room for Last-Minute Language Loopholes

As this case shows, even the most creative attempts to sidestep tax liability will ultimately fall flat without evidence.

Timing is critical, and appeals based on novel interpretations of “human rights” need more than linguistic flair to succeed.