Splend SPV (UK) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 5 February 2026

Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 232 (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 challenged late payment penalties (LPPs) issued under Schedule 26 for unpaid VAT of £534,314.87 due 7 November 2024 and paid on 23 January 2025. The First-tier Tribunal held HMRC had proven issuance and deemed service of the penalty notices, that the appellant failed to establish a reasonable excuse (cashflow problems from delayed repayments for later periods did not excuse non-payment of the earlier liability), and that there was no basis to disturb HMRC’s refusal of a special reduction. 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

Where HMRC’s systems record that LPP notices were posted and the recipient does not rebut the statutory presumption of service, those notices are deemed served for the purposes of Schedule 26. Further, cashflow difficulties caused by delayed VAT repayments relating to later periods do not, without additional evidence, constitute a reasonable excuse for failure to pay an earlier VAT liability by its due date.

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 mixing VAT receipts with general business funds remains a taxpayer risk and that large sums alone do not make insufficiency of funds a reasonable excuse; and that refunds to related companies are irrelevant where the companies are not in a VAT group and the refunds concern different VAT periods.

Warning

Chunk contains substantial duplication and repeated passages, which made extraction of unique points repetitive. Notes contain duplication and repetition which made extraction of unique points noisy.