Mary Simpkins v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 October 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 924 (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 a Schedule 36 paragraph 1 information notice issued by HMRC to Mary Simpkins seeking documents about her employment with Olympus Consulting Ltd to check possible under-deduction of PAYE/NIC. The Tribunal held that HMRC may "check" tax positions broadly (including past and then-current tax years and without a formal enquiry), that the requested documents were reasonably required, and that the notice met the formal statutory requirements. The notice was declared valid and the appellant was ordered to comply within 57 days; she may apply under Rule 38 to set the decision aside within 28 days.
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: medium
The Tribunal's ratio is that a paragraph 1 Schedule 36 information notice may be issued to a taxpayer to "check" tax positions in a broad sense (including past and then-current tax years and in the absence of a formal enquiry), and that employment-related documents routinely held or obtainable by an employee (terms, payslips, bank statements, contracts, correspondence) can be reasonably required under Sch 36 where HMRC suspect under-deduction of PAYE/NIC and need to assess the taxpayer’s knowledge of arrangements.
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 observed (non-bindingly) that an onerous obligation on a taxpayer under a paragraph 1 notice is not itself a ground of appeal (contrast with third-party notices), and that most employees would reasonably retain employment documentation so a one-month compliance period was reasonable in the circumstances.