SB Wakefield Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 19 June 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 548 (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
SB Wakefield appealed a 2% VAT default surcharge for period 10/21, arguing a Time To Pay Agreement (TTPA) had been agreed before the electronic payment deadline for 10/20 so that the earlier default would not trigger the surcharge regime, or alternatively that they reasonably believed such a TTPA existed. The Tribunal found no TTPA in place by the payment deadline of 7.12.20, concluded the TTPA was only agreed on 21.12.20, rejected the reasonable‑belief defence, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the £1,607.14 surcharge.
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 Tribunal applied that a TTPA must be agreed before the relevant payment due date to prevent entry into the default surcharge regime, and that contemporaneous records and HMRC’s internal records/confirmation letters are critical to establish whether a TTPA existed; the taxpayer’s claimed belief is assessed objectively against proven facts and relevant personal attributes.
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 judgment emphasises that later recollections are of limited weight compared with contemporaneous documents, and that the absence of reference to an earlier arrangement in HMRC confirmation correspondence is probative—points discussed as persuasive observations rather than novel binding legal principles.