Sumangkaly Siva v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 20 September 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 344 (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

The Tribunal considered HMRC's application to strike out Mrs Siva's appeal against amounts for PAYE and NICs shown on Full Payment Submissions (FPS) covering Feb 2018–5 Dec 2019. It held that an employer's FPS that records pay and tax deductions gives rise automatically to the payment obligation under the PAYE Regulations and, absent an HMRC determination, does not constitute a separate appealable decision. The appeal was struck out for lack of jurisdiction and the amounts shown on the submissions remain payable unless and until the returns are amended.

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 PAYE Full Payment Submission that records pay and tax deductions creates an automatic payment obligation under the PAYE Regulations; where HMRC has not made a separate determination, the FPS itself is not a decision which may be appealed to the Tribunal. If an employer can amend inaccurate FPS returns under the statutory procedure but has not done so, the amounts reported remain due and may be pursued by HMRC.

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 explained effects of strike-out under Tribunal Procedure Rule 8 (struck-out proceedings cease to exist unless reinstated) and noted that HMRC can intervene via a regulation 80 determination in other cases (no such determination occurred here). It also observed that parties may amend returns under Regulation 67E, including outside the tax year.