Paul Brown v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 20 March 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 245 (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 HMRC "discovery" assessments for the high income child benefit charge (HICBC) for 2014/15–2017/18 and related Schedule 41 penalties. The Tribunal held HMRC had not proved the assessments were validly made by an identifiable officer (assessments signed only by an anonymous "HICBC Team") and alternatively that most assessments were out of time; it also found Mr Brown had a reasonable excuse so no penalties arose. The appeal was allowed in full.
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 as a necessary element of a valid s29 TMA discovery assessment that the discovery must be shown to have been made by an identifiable officer (not merely an unnamed "team"), and that HMRC bears the burden of proving who made the discovery; absent such proof (or evidence of a fresh discovery by a subsequent officer), the assessment may be invalid.
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 indicated (obiter) that s103(1) FA 2020 (delegation of officer functions to HMRC systems or to the department generally) is unlikely to cover discovery assessments because discovery is evaluative and depends on an individual officer's state of mind; HMRC guidance and higher authority were noted as supporting the personal nature of a discovery, though one officer may pass a case to another who then makes a fresh discovery.