Pauline Luzha v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 26 February 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 320 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 concerns VAT penalty points and two £200 financial penalties under Schedule 24 FA 2021 imposed on Pauline Luzha for multiple late VAT returns. The Tribunal held the penalties were correctly issued, finding no reasonable excuse for the late submissions and that any failures were not remedied without unreasonable delay. The appeal was dismissed and the total penalties of £400 were 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: medium

The Tribunal treated as determinative that a taxpayer cannot rely on unconfirmed reliance on an agent where the taxpayer has not taken reasonable care to avoid the failure, and that vague software difficulties without evidence of the fault or of steps taken (including contacting HMRC) do not constitute a reasonable excuse. The statutory allocation of burden and the civil standard (balance of probabilities) govern proof of 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 suggested, as guidance, that a responsible trader should take proactive steps such as chasing an agent or seeking assistance from HMRC when notified of missed filings or encountering software problems, and that mere business hardship without evidence of events outside the taxpayer’s control is unlikely to establish a reasonable excuse.

Warning

Some material in the chunk is duplicated and contains formatting/noise, but the factual and reasoning content is clear.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML