Vijayasarathi Baskararajulu v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 18 May 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 430 (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 £1,300 of late filing penalties for 2019–20 and whether the Tribunal had jurisdiction to hear appeals against two of the penalties and whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse or special circumstances. The Tribunal found the appellant’s 1 January 2022 correspondence to HMRC constituted notice of appeal to the relevant officer and exercised its discretion to permit late notification of two penalties, but held the appellant had no reasonable excuse for an eight‑month late return and refused to reduce penalties for special circumstances. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties confirmed.
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 taxpayer’s substantive correspondence in response to an HMRC decision, if it sets out grounds of appeal and is received by the correct HMRC team, can satisfy the statutory requirement to notify the “relevant officer” and thus give the Tribunal jurisdiction even if it does not specify penalty amounts or use a particular form. The Tribunal may also permit late notification of an appeal where permitting it is in the interests of justice (for example because the appellant reasonably relied on ongoing HMRC process), provided no prejudice or undue tribunal resource consequence arises.
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 that automated issuance of penalty notices, which may lack a named signatory, does not prevent correspondence addressed to the issuing team from constituting notice to the relevant officer. It also observed that the general policy reasons for first appealing to HMRC do not automatically bar permitting late notification where HMRC has already considered the appellant’s grounds.