Adam Pelled v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 12 August 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 376 (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 5% late‑payment surcharge under s.59C(2) TMA 1970 for the year to 5 April 2008, imposed after the appellant failed to pay a balancing payment due 31 January 2009 until 16 November 2009. The appellant relied on erroneous advice from his tax adviser and an anticipated carry‑back of losses from 2008–09 as excuses for late payment. The First‑tier Tribunal held there was no “reasonable excuse” throughout the period of default, confirmed the £6,673.59 surcharge, and noted carry‑back relief claimed later did not undo the earlier surcharge.

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 applied that a surcharge can only be set aside if a reasonable excuse exists throughout the entire default period; reliance on a tax adviser’s incorrect advice will not, absent exceptional circumstances, amount to a reasonable excuse; and carry‑back relief made after the date of default does not retrospectively negate a surcharge already imposed.

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 records obiter points that HMRC guidance treats “reasonable excuse” as limited to exceptional, uncontrollable events (e.g. serious illness or bereavement), and that taxpayers’ prior experience with self‑assessment and on‑form warnings reduces the force of ignorance as an excuse.

Warning

The chunk contains duplicated passages and repetition of factual material. Notes contain duplicated passages and repetition; they may be noisy.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML