Law Costing Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 28 April 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 278 (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 challenged a £400 penalty for late filing of a P35, hinging on whether a submission made on 9 April 2010 was a live return or a test. The tribunal found, on the balance of probabilities, that the 9 April submission was a test (not live) based on HMRC ERSS records and system response codes, and that the appellant had no reasonable excuse for late filing. The appeal was dismissed and the penalty upheld.
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 treated HMRC’s electronic ERSS records and the system-generated response codes (9001 for test, 9004 for live) as determinative evidence of whether an online submission was a test or live; identical automated or “courtesy” e‑mail receipts do not, by themselves, prove a live submission was made.
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: high
The tribunal expressed sympathy that taxpayers may not be promptly informed when online filings fail and suggested that earlier or formal notification of failed online submissions would be desirable, while noting it lacked power to alter HMRC’s systems.