Mr T W Rolton Representative partner in Mr T W Rolton, Mr B J Bryan and Mrs E F Rolton t/a Collier Row Glass v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 3 November 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 539 (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 concerned £100 penalties for late filing of a partnership return. The tribunal found a blank paper partnership return served as valid notice requiring a partnership return, that the partnership return was filed late, and that there was no reasonable excuse; penalties for Mr T W Rolton and Mr B J Bryan were confirmed while Mrs E F Rolton’s penalty was withdrawn/set aside. The tribunal also held HMRC were not obliged to provide free software for electronic filing.
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 decided that a blank paper partnership return can constitute valid notice under section 12AA TMA requiring a partnership return; individual partners’ self-assessment returns do not substitute for the partnership return; HMRC may prescribe electronic filing requirements by regulations, directions and accompanying website material and need not provide free third‑party software; an agent’s decision not to purchase required commercial software does not, without more, amount to a reasonable excuse for late filing.
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 reliance on the Taxpayers’ Charter or the Human Rights Act did not assist the appellants in this context. It also noted that late provision of HMRC skeleton bundles was not a basis for exclusion absent shown prejudice, and excluded unverified telephone call transcripts.