Steve Jordan Fencing v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 16 November 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 570 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

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: medium

This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of Steve Jordan Fencing's CIS gross payment status for alleged late tax payments due 31 January 2009 and 31 July 2008. The tribunal found the January 2009 payments were late, that the appellant failed to prove a reasonable excuse (his claim of having sent a cheque on 29 January was unsupported), and dismissed the appeal in relation to those defaults; no finding was made on the July 2008 payment.

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 treated the core legal rule as that a taxpayer bears the evidential burden of proving a reasonable excuse for late tax payments; bare assertions are insufficient. An asserted dispatch of a cheque can constitute a continuing reasonable excuse while it reasonably persists, but that excuse ceases once there is adequate notice or evidence that the payment was not received unless other supporting evidence sustains the claim.

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 indicated that adverse commercial effects of withdrawing gross payment status may bear on the seriousness of non-compliance but are not determinative of whether a reasonable excuse exists; and that receipt of a self-assessment or a surcharge notice may mark the point at which a previously claimed mailed-payment excuse ends — although these points were not treated as binding ratio.

Warning

- The chunk contains substantial repetition of material; some passages are duplicated. Notes contain duplication/repetition.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML