David Hill & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 September 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 844 (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 penalties imposed on Mr Hill and Mr McCracken for failing to comply with Schedule 36 Information Notices. The Tribunal found they did not have a reasonable excuse in relying on their advisers without taking reasonable care to verify the advice, and it upheld the daily penalties in full. The Tribunal also held that it has full appellate jurisdiction to substitute its own decision on penalty amounts.
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 decision establishes that reliance on an adviser will not amount to a reasonable excuse for failing to comply with a Schedule 36 Information Notice unless the taxpayer has taken reasonable care to verify the advice and the correspondence relied upon; where a reasonable excuse has ceased, paragraph 45(2)(c) requires the failure to be remedied without unreasonable delay. The Tribunal has full appellate (not merely supervisory) jurisdiction to substitute its own decision on penalty quantum.
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 suggests that short, non‑detailed communications from a practitioner do not justify unquestioning reliance by a taxpayer concerned about pension safety, and that advisers' misplaced optimism that HMRC would be persuaded without appeal does not justify prolonged non‑compliance and may prolong penalties.