Alan German v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 23 February 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 135 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
Mr German, an elderly disabled PAYE taxpayer, appealed HMRC’s recovery of a £1,485 underpayment and associated late-filing penalties and surcharges after HMRC coding/posting errors contributed to the underpayment and he filed a self-assessment return late. The Tribunal found the underpayment resulted from HMRC error but held there is no statutory bar preventing recovery from the employee, declined to review HMRC’s wider residual discretion to remit the tax, and upheld the late-filing penalties and surcharges because no continuous reasonable excuse was shown.
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
The Tribunal’s essential holding is that where a PAYE underpayment arises from HMRC error there is no statutory provision (akin to Reg.72) preventing HMRC from recovering the underpayment from the employee; documents properly addressed and posted are treated as delivered in the ordinary course of post (so non‑receipt does not necessarily afford a continuing reasonable excuse); and the statutory conditions for remission under ESC A19 limit remission when the taxpayer was notified within twelve months of the year end. The Tribunal declined to exercise jurisdiction to review HMRC’s wider managerial/residual discretion to remit outside the statutory scheme.
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 decision contains remarks that the scope of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction to review HMRC’s broader managerial discretion is controversial and uncertain, noting opposing authorities and expressing sympathy for the appellant’s vulnerable circumstances while observing that any discretionary remission or time-to-pay arrangements remain for HMRC to decide. These comments are advisory rather than binding.
Warning
quality:contains_crown_copyright Chunk contains substantial duplicated/repetitive text making it somewhat noisy.