Claire Marie Walker v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 September 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 865 (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 three late filing penalties issued to Ms Walker for the year to 5 April 2021 and whether HMRC validly served the filing notice and penalty notices by electronic means. The Tribunal found HMRC failed to prove service because their electronic evidence was incomprehensible and lacked regulation 6 certificates or adequate witness/expert support, and accordingly allowed the appeal and cancelled the penalties. The Tribunal also held, alternatively, that Ms Walker had not established a reasonable excuse based on reliance on her husband.
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 electronic service is disputed, HMRC should ordinarily prove delivery either by producing the certification provided for in regulation 6 or by adducing cogent, comprehensible primary evidence supported as necessary by factual witness evidence and expert evidence to explain and interpret system extracts. Separately, a taxpayer relying on another person to file must show they took reasonable care to avoid the failure for that reliance to constitute a reasonable excuse.
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 expressed expectations about the form of electronic-system evidence: a factual witness to explain how data were extracted and an expert to interpret system outputs, and warned that advocates should not be used as a substitute for primary factual witnesses about internal processes. These statements appear as guidance rather than binding ratio.