Mr T W Farrow Representative partner in Mr T W Farrow and Mr M C Cartwright t/a Kitchen and Bathroom Installations v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 3 November 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 534 (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 challenged two £100 penalties for late partnership returns. The tribunal found the blank paper partnership return served as a valid notice, the partnership return was required and was filed after both the paper and electronic deadlines, and there was no reasonable excuse for the delay, so the penalties were confirmed and the appeal 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
The tribunal’s dispositive reasoning is that a blank paper partnership return can constitute a valid notice under the relevant provision to require a partnership return, and that HMRC may prescribe the form and method of electronic filing by directions and regulations (including requiring the use of approved third‑party software) without being obliged to provide free software itself; on those bases late filing after the statutory deadlines justified penalties.
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 suggested (obiter) that even if HMRC had breached any duty in prescribing electronic filing arrangements, that would not assist the appellants where the paper return was filed after the electronic deadline; and that reliance on the Taxpayers’ Charter or human rights arguments did not create a legal duty on HMRC to supply free software.