Paul Wright v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 20 December 2010

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 14 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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: medium

This appeal concerned HMRC's withdrawal of the appellant's CIS gross payment status after he failed to pay a 31 January 2009 balancing payment and first payment on account until June–July 2009. The Tribunal found he had no reasonable excuse for the lateness—rejecting that reliance on a partner's instructions or cash-flow difficulties amounted to a reasonable excuse—and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC's decision.

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

From the Tribunal's findings: cash-flow difficulties caused by a business downturn do not automatically constitute a reasonable excuse where the taxpayer has not exercised reasonable foresight and due diligence; similarly, completing and submitting an SA303 (reducing payments on account) without consulting one’s own adviser, despite warnings and the form’s wording, negates reliance on another party’s instructions as a reasonable excuse.

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 an otherwise clean compliance record may be a mitigating factor but does not amount to a reasonable excuse, and that adverse consequences of non-compliance (for example, loss of partnership gross status) do not themselves create a reasonable excuse.

Warning

Chunk contains substantial duplication and repeated passages. Notes contain substantial duplication and possible omission of fuller reasoning; they may be noisy.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML