Mr Stuart William Broughall v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 21 March 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 193 (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 concerned a £100 penalty for alleged late delivery of a land transaction return (SDLT1) for a freehold title. The Appellant had submitted a return before the filing date listing both freehold and leasehold titles and a single vendor; HMRC later required a separate return naming a different vendor and issued a penalty. The Tribunal found HMRC had not proven the Appellant failed to deliver the required return by the filing date and allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty.

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 held that HMRC bears the burden of proving a taxpayer failed to deliver the required return by the filing date; only if HMRC discharges that burden does it fall to the taxpayer to show a reasonable excuse. Where a return submitted before the filing date described both titles and a single vendor under the contract, HMRC must point to statutory provisions to establish that additional or separate returns were required.

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 suggested (obiter) that a contractual description of the seller may, for some purposes, be sufficient to show who was treated as the vendor in a return even if land registry documentation names a different transferor. It also commented that HMRC should identify specific legislative provisions when asserting that separate returns or different vendor details are mandatory.