John J Duffy v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 22 June 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 405 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 HMRC's withdrawal of the appellant's gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme after six late tax payments in 2008/2009. The Tribunal found the appellant failed to prove a "reasonable excuse" for the late PAYE and Self Assessment payments, rejecting personal investment decisions and uncertain overdraft availability as excuses. The appeal was dismissed.

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

An appellant asserting a "reasonable excuse" for late tax payments must present cogent evidence beyond bare accounts and assertions to meet the requisite standard of proof; foreseeable personal financial or investment choices that impair the ability to pay tax do not, by themselves, 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 noted that sympathy for the adverse business effects of losing gross payment status does not alter the legal standard for reasonable excuse, and that timing issues (such as year‑end or seasonal slow periods) can be relevant only if supported by evidence.

Warning

- The chunk contains duplicated and slightly inconsistent date references (8 October date appears as 2009 and 2010), making the exact notification year unclear. Notes contain a duplicated and inconsistent date reference (an 8 October date given as 2009 and 2010), so the exact notification year is unclear.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML