Gilad Kalchheim v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 11 August 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 709 (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 by Gilad Kalchheim challenged a Schedule 56 late payment penalty of £135 for unpaid High‑Income Child Benefit Charge for year ending 5 April 2021. HMRC proved the statutory defaults (due date 31 January 2022; payment made 26 April 2022), and the tribunal found the appellant did not establish a reasonable excuse or special circumstances to avoid or reduce the penalty. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.
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
Where HMRC establishes the statutory defaults giving rise to a Schedule 56 penalty (dates for payment/notification and non‑payment), the initial evidential burden is met and the taxpayer must prove on the balance of probabilities that a reasonable excuse (or special circumstances) existed to avoid liability or reduction.
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 (obiter) that HMRC have no general statutory duty to notify taxpayers of legislative changes such as the HICBC; that wide publicity and availability of HMRC materials may be relevant when assessing whether a taxpayer had a reasonable excuse; and that mere ignorance or ordinary unfamiliarity with the law is not usually a reasonable excuse, unlike exceptional incapacity.