Foster and Sons Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 5 November 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 1009 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
Foster & Sons appealed default surcharge penalties for several VAT periods. The Tribunal found HMRC proved posting of surcharge notices for 05/21, 08/21, 11/21 and 08/22 to the company's last known business address (Oakbank) but did not prove service of the 02/21 notice; the 02/21 surcharge was therefore set aside and subsequent surcharge rates were adjusted to 2% (08/21), 5% (11/21) and 10% (08/22). The Tribunal rejected Foster & Sons' claimed reasonable excuses (covid-related business difficulties, failure to notify HMRC of address change, and a bank change without checking processing times).
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium
Service by post to the taxpayer's last known business address will be treated as effective on the balance of probabilities where there is evidence of posting and no returned mail or credible evidence of non-delivery; conversely, HMRC must show posting to establish a surcharge notice and failure to prove posting means the notice is not correctly issued. Failure to notify HMRC of an address change is a relevant factor against a taxpayer asserting non-receipt and undermines a reasonable excuse.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The judgment comments (non-bindingly) that it is good business practice to check new bank payment processes (cut-off and clearing times), and that premises being vacant for part of a period but not later periods may weaken a blanket assertion of non-delivery of mail.
Warning
The chunk contains substantial repetition of the same material and duplicated paragraphs, which may make extraction of unique points more difficult. The provided notes contain substantial repetition and duplicated material; they may be incomplete in respect of full factual and legal detail.