Chris Crooks v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 14 April 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 246 (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
Mr Crooks appealed 15 penalties totalling £1,500 for late CIS monthly returns for periods ended 5 Aug–5 Dec 2009. The tribunal found he was honest but had no reasonable excuse: ignorance of the CIS filing requirements and reliance on helpline advice did not causally explain the late filings. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties upheld.
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 ratio is that lack of knowledge of how the CIS operates does not by itself constitute a "reasonable excuse" under TMA s.118(2), and that reliance on advice from a helpline will not excuse non-compliance unless that advice can be shown to have caused the failure to file.
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 expressed views that sympathy for taxpayer distress at receiving multiple penalties together does not impose any statutory obligation on HMRC to issue penalties in a particular pattern, and that financial difficulties arising after the period of default do not excuse earlier defaults. These observations do not form the binding rationale for the decision.
Warning
Text contains duplicated passages and formatting artefacts which made extraction of some passages repetitive but did not alter the core findings. notes contain duplicated passages and formatting artefacts but the core findings appear intact.