Castledale Building Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 9 May 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 301 (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 243 penalties totalling £36,100 imposed on a CIS contractor for 31 late monthly returns between May 2007 and September 2009. The appellant relied on marital breakdown, loss/corruption of records, family illness, personal stress and financial difficulty as reasonable excuses; HMRC relied on publicity and that the appellant continued trading without promptly contacting HMRC. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse and that the penalties were not grossly disproportionate, 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

The Tribunal treated loss or corruption of business records as capable of constituting a reasonable excuse only if the taxpayer provides adequate particulars and evidence of what was lost, efforts to recover the information and the timing of those events. It also indicated that a taxpayer who continues trading, receives payments, but does not promptly seek alternative arrangements or inform HMRC is less likely to have a reasonable excuse for late filing.

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 commented that shortage of funds alone is not a reasonable excuse, though the underlying cause of a shortage might be relevant if evidenced and shown to have caused non-compliance; and that significant delay (about 15 months in this case) in informing HMRC of difficulties undermines a claim of reasonable excuse because a reasonable businessperson should contact HMRC or obtain assistance promptly.