Lynsey Lapsley v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 November 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 1075 (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 whether HMRC validly issued a discovery assessment for 2018–19 of £8,630.92 arising from an unreported PAYE refund and related Higher Income Child Benefit Charge. The Tribunal found HMRC officer Wallace reasonably formed a belief of an insufficiency of tax and thus validly made a discovery under TMA 1970 s.29(1)(b). The Tribunal also held that the October 2019 phone call and ensuing PAYE refund did not amount to a "claim" under s.29(6)(b), so the information was not "made available" before the enquiry window closed, and the assessment amount represented the insufficiency.
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 information of an unreported refund was obtained from HMRC records and formed the basis of an officer’s reasonable belief that tax was insufficient, that belief can satisfy TMA 1970 s.29(1)(b) and support a discovery assessment; a taxpayer’s telephone contact resulting in a PAYE refund, made outside prescribed claim procedures and not in a return, did not amount to a "claim" so as to make the refund "information made available" under s.29(6)(b).
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 commented (non-bindingly) on practical difficulties caused by unclear HMRC account statements and correspondence, recommending HMRC provide clear calculations explaining how prior refunds and payments have been applied before recovery action; it also noted the stress and confusion such correspondence can cause and that penalties were not pursued in this case.