Fucius Capital Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 26 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1489 (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
Fucius Capital appealed Schedule 26 late-payment VAT penalties for period 07/25, arguing it had a reasonable excuse because its director relied on professional email advice to delay submission and (he believed) payment. The Tribunal accepted the factual account and genuine reliance but held that reliance on professional advice, while potentially a reasonable excuse, was not objectively reasonable here given the sums and risk of penalties and the absence of any attempt to seek clarification. The appeal was dismissed.
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
Reliance on professional advice can amount to a reasonable excuse only if the taxpayer’s reliance is both genuine and objectively reasonable in the taxpayer’s circumstances; where significant penalties and large sums are at stake, a taxpayer who receives potentially ambiguous advice should seek clarification to avoid liability.
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 that wording in advice limited to “submission” might reasonably be read by some recipients as also covering payment, especially when the advice mentions HMRC issuing a central assessment; and it noted the multi-stage approach from Perrin and Mirza (establish facts, prove facts, assess objectively, and consider remediation) for assessing reasonable excuse.