Kinlet Properties Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 22 June 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 403 (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
Kinlet Properties appealed a £400 penalty for filing their 2009/10 P35 late (due 19 May 2010; filed online 15 October 2010). The appellant's director admitted forgetting to file and relied on absence of reminders and alleged HMRC computer downtime. The First-tier Tribunal found no reasonable excuse under s.118(2) TMA, held HMRC was not obliged to send reminders and that published employer guidance gave notice of the filing obligation. The appeal was dismissed and the £400 penalty confirmed.
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
The Tribunal’s operative ratio is that mere forgetfulness does not constitute a “reasonable excuse” under s.118(2) TMA, and that HMRC’s publication of filing obligations (for example in an employer pack) can mean there is no obligation on HMRC to send reminders and thus undermine a taxpayer’s claim that lack of reminders excuses late filing.
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 notes (obiter) that the statute does not define “reasonable excuse,” so reasonableness must be assessed on the facts of each case, and that truly exceptional events outside the taxpayer’s control are more likely to amount to a reasonable excuse.