Daniel Monaghan v The Commissioners For HMRC
Decision date: 7 July 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1029 (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
This appeal concerned late-filing penalties for the 2019/20 self-assessment. The Tribunal allowed admission of the out-of-time appeal and found HMRC had not proved service of a notice requiring a return under s.8 TMA, so Schedule 55 penalties could not be sustained and were cancelled.
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: high
The Tribunal applied a balancing exercise (delay length, reasons for default, prejudice, and apparent strength of the substantive case) when deciding to admit a late appeal, and held that HMRC bears the burden of proving service of a s.8 TMA notice before Schedule 55 penalties can be imposed; absent proof of such service the penalties must be set aside.
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 Tribunal noted that efficient litigation, proportionate costs and respect for statutory time limits are important considerations in the s.49 TMA balancing exercise, and observed that wording on an SA100 form alone (e.g. "This notice requires you...") does not automatically prove a statutory notice under s.8 TMA.