Paul Burchett v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 121 (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 HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) and Schedule 41 failure-to-notify penalties for tax years 2012/13–2018/19. The Tribunal found it had jurisdiction only for certain years, held the challenged discovery assessments to be "relevant protected assessments" under FA 2022 but nonetheless out of time because the taxpayer established a reasonable excuse (unawareness of HICBC until January 2021), and cancelled the Schedule 41 penalties on reasonable-excuse and prompt-action grounds. The Tribunal rejected that the appeal was subject to a temporary statutory pause before 27 October 2021.
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: medium
The decision indicates that only matters expressly appealed to HMRC and reviewed can be brought to the Tribunal; an appellant’s notice to HMRC must identify the specific assessments/penalties under review. It also holds that FA 2022 s97 protections require that an argument that an assessment is not a discovery of income be specifically raised by the deadline (on or before 30 June 2021) to fall within the exception. Finally, the Tribunal accepted that an objectively reasonable excuse for failure to notify can exist where a taxpayer was unaware of HICBC until direct HMRC contact.
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 notes record non-binding observations that HMRC's internal records of sending informational letters (e.g. SA252) without retained copies or posting evidence are not necessarily compelling proof of receipt; that the classification of a disclosure as "prompted" versus "unprompted" under Schedule 41 is fact-specific and can affect minimum penalty reductions; and that FTT factual findings in one case may be admissible but are not binding in another.