Benjamin Redgraves v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 July 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 658 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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
Mr Redgraves appealed penalties for failing to notify liability to the Higher Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2019/20. The First-tier Tribunal found the penalty assessments validly raised and correctly calculated, rejected his claim of a reasonable excuse (ignorance of the law and not having received earlier nudge letters), found no special circumstances to reduce the penalty, 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: high
The Tribunal held that ignorance of the law, standing alone, does not constitute a reasonable excuse for failure to notify under Schedule 41; HMRC is not under a statutory duty to inform all taxpayers of changes to tax rules, and the absence of such notification does not by itself make taxpayer ignorance a reasonable excuse. For a prompted disclosure, applying mitigation percentages consistent with the Schedule (10%/20%) to determine the penalty was proper.
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 analogies to commercial eligibility checks (such as banks’ procedures) are not persuasive in the statutory tax context, and noted that challenges about administrative practices or the general fairness of penalties are matters for HMRC administration or judicial review rather than for the Tribunal’s jurisdiction on lawful assessment.