Douglas Lakeland v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 November 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 978 (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 remade FTT decision reconsidered discovery assessments and a failure-to-notify penalty under the HICBC after a procedural irregularity. The tribunal accepted the appellant’s and his spouse’s evidence that they did not receive prior HMRC mail, found ignorance of the HICBC to be a reasonable excuse up to and including 10 July 2021, limited HMRC to ordinary time limits and therefore validated only the 2019/20 assessment (tax £1,788), and allowed appeals against earlier years and the penalty.
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 a taxpayer proves, on the balance of probabilities, non-receipt of HMRC communications, ignorance of the HICBC can amount to a reasonable excuse; if such a reasonable excuse exists for the failure to notify, HMRC’s extended discovery assessment period does not apply and ordinary time limits (here the 4‑year limit for protected assessments) determine which years can validly be assessed unless the reasonable excuse ceases and is not remedied without unreasonable delay.
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 suggested that financial confidentiality between partners can make it objectively reasonable not to inquire about a partner’s child benefit in the absence of actual notice of the HICBC, and that HMRC’s high overall postal delivery rates do not displace credible evidence of non-receipt.