Darren Dunckley v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 10 August 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 707 (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
This appeal concerned a discovery assessment for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2018/19 and a Schedule 41 penalty for failure to notify. The tribunal upheld the HICBC discovery assessment but allowed the appeal against the penalty, finding the appellant had a reasonable excuse for not notifying and remedied the failure without unreasonable delay after being notified. The tribunal accepted HMRC had sent post but also accepted the appellant's credible evidence of non‑receipt of earlier "nudge" correspondence.
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 upheld that a valid discovery assessment for HICBC can be made where HMRC establishes a discoverable loss of tax and the relevant legislative amendments apply; and that a taxpayer’s ignorance of the duty to notify can constitute a reasonable excuse in some cases, assessed objectively against the taxpayer’s attributes and conduct. The tribunal also treated evidence of posting and non‑return as sufficient to show HMRC sent letters but accepted credible taxpayer evidence of non‑receipt where not seriously challenged.
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 endorsed use of the Perrin/Clean Car Co objective test for reasonable excuse and referred to recent tribunal decisions (e.g. Goodall) as illustrative of factors likely to support reasonable excuse in HICBC contexts. It also observed that it is sensible to apply by analogy the Interpretation Act presumption of service to non‑statutory "nudge" letters while recognising HMRC bears the burden of proving posting and the taxpayer may rebut receipt.