Benjamin Erridge v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 27 March 2024

Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 276 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

This First-tier Tribunal decision concerned Benjamin Erridge’s HICBC assessments and penalties for 2012–13 to 2018–19. The Tribunal found Mr Erridge, a dyslexic taxpayer, had a reasonable excuse for failing to notify HICBC liability and cancelled the penalties; because he was thereby treated as not having failed to notify, extended assessment periods could not be relied on and HMRC’s assessments for 2013–14 to 2017–18 were cancelled. Only the 2018–19 assessment of £2,501 was upheld. The Tribunal declined jurisdiction to rule on HMRC’s debt-collection conduct or to grant ESC A19 relief.

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

A taxpayer’s disability and the surrounding factual circumstances can constitute an objective reasonable excuse for failure to notify a tax liability; where a reasonable excuse exists and is not followed by unreasonable delay in taking steps to comply, the taxpayer is treated as not having failed to notify and HMRC cannot rely on extended statutory assessment periods.

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 judgment comments that HMRC guidance indicates debt collection should be inhibited for disputed penalties and that failure to do so may be addressed by complaint or judicial review rather than by the Tribunal. It also notes that ESC A19 might be relevant where HMRC failed to use information in time, but the Tribunal stated it cannot grant ESC A19 relief in this appeal.