Stephen Ray v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 22 October 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 968 (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 seven late payment penalties imposed on Stephen Ray for non-payment of Accelerated Payment Notices (APNs) issued in respect of tax from two registered avoidance schemes. The Tribunal found HMRC had validly issued final APNs that remained unpaid, and that Ray failed to establish a reasonable excuse or special circumstances (mere inability to pay and settlement differences were insufficient). The Tribunal rejected the appellant’s alternative legal challenges (including that settlement required withdrawal of APNs) and dismissed the appeal.
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
Where HMRC proves an APN was validly issued, final and unpaid, the taxpayer bears the onus of showing a reasonable excuse for non-payment; inability to pay does not constitute a reasonable excuse, and a later settlement figure differing from an APN does not alone demonstrate a gross or obvious error in the APN especially where no statutory representations were made.
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 that claims that an APN is invalid must be robustly based to amount to a reasonable excuse and that procedural invalidity might, in limited circumstances, give rise to a reasonable excuse, whereas substantive challenges to APN amounts are unlikely to do so if the taxpayer did not pursue the statutory representation process.