Cabling Utilities Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 5 April 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 224 (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 penalties for using rebated (red) diesel in a Pole Erection Unit which was stopped while carrying telegraph poles. The Tribunal had to decide whether carrying poles removed the vehicle's excepted status and whether the company's reliance on prior written advice from HMRC could amount to a reasonable excuse. Having found the taxpayers were aware of basic law but had relied on HMRC's specific reply after seeing photographs, the Tribunal held there was a reasonable excuse and allowed the appeal. Penalties were not 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: medium

A taxpayer's reliance on an official communication from HMRC can constitute a reasonable excuse where the issue in question involves mixed questions of law and fact beyond basic legal knowledge; by contrast, mere ignorance of basic or primary legal rules is not a reasonable excuse. The Tribunal applied that distinction in allowing reliance on HMRC's specific prior advice about the vehicle.

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 noted (and drew assistance from authority) distinguishing ignorance of basic law from ignorance of matters involving mixed law and fact, and observed that an HMRC reply that is unhelpful or ambiguous can affect whether reliance on it will amount to a reasonable excuse.

Warning

Some paragraphs and passages are duplicated in the provided chunk. Some provided notes contain duplicated passages; no other obvious omissions noted.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML