James Anderson v PriceWaterhouseCoopers & Anor
Decision date: 6 December 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 457 (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 was a preliminary First-tier Tribunal hearing on whether Mr Anderson's late referral under s 12(ABZB) TMA could be admitted and whether it was in any event excluded as in substance about the amount (before sharing) of partnership profits. The Tribunal held it had no power to extend the statutory 12‑month referral period, that the partnership return was "delivered" when filed with HMRC so the referral was out of time, and that the dispute was substantively about the amount of partnership profits and therefore excluded by ABZB(4). The referral was dismissed.
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 statute prescribes a time limit for an ABZB(3) referral (ABZB(5)), the Tribunal’s case‑management power under its rules (Rule 5(3)(a)) cannot be used to override that statutory 12‑month limit; the partnership return is "delivered" for ABZB(5) on the day it is delivered to HMRC (the officer), not on the day a partner receives a statement; and a dispute over whether a payment is deductible compensation or a partner’s profit share, if its resolution affects partnership profit before sharing, can be treated as in substance a dispute about the amount (before sharing) of partnership profits and thus excluded by ABZB(4).
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 and doubted an Upper Tribunal observation in VK suggesting Rule 21 provides an exception to Rule 5(3)(a), describing that observation as not binding or well‑reasoned. The Tribunal also rejected practical arguments that partners’ lack of knowledge of allocations should lead to reading "delivered" as meaning delivery to individual partners.