Century Builders Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 23 August 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 415 (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

Century Builders Ltd appealed HMRC penalties totaling £300 for late monthly CIS returns for the period ended 5 April 2009, which were filed on 4 July 2009 instead of by 19 April 2009. The Tribunal found the company had no reasonable excuse for the delay given available HMRC guidance and prior direct advice, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the monthly penalties.

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

Where a taxpayer has access to HMRC guidance and has received direct advice about filing obligations, ignorance of the online filing process or forgetting to file does not constitute a "reasonable excuse" to avoid statutory monthly CIS late-filing penalties; absent such a reasonable excuse the automatic penalties are properly imposed.

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 HMRC's website provided clear guidance on online filing and on automatic penalties for late returns, and recorded the appellant's preference for manual filing as irrelevant to the decision.

Warning

- Some text in the chunk is duplicated; otherwise clear.