Mr Martin West v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 20 August 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 443 (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 concerned a 5% late payment surcharge for 2007/08 self-assessment tax. The tribunal found the appellant initiated an online payment on 27 February 2009 but HMRC did not receive funds until 2 March 2009, so the tax remained unpaid at the start of the 29th day after the due date; no reasonable excuse was established and the surcharge was confirmed. The appellant’s contention that initiation alone constituted payment was rejected and any minor imprecision in HMRC correspondence was held not to have misled him. 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: high
The decision indicates that, for surcharge/tax-default purposes, the relevant date of payment is when HMRC actually receives the funds, not the date on which a taxpayer merely initiates an electronic payment instruction; minor imprecisions in HMRC correspondence will not invalidate a surcharge where the taxpayer was, in substance, aware of the correct basis of liability.
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 (by way of contrast) that cheque payments may have different consequences because they are payable on demand, and that HMRC guidance that internet payments normally take up to three bank working days to reach HMRC was relevant to assessing the reasonableness of the appellant’s expectations.