B & J Shopfitting Services v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 15 January 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 78 (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

The First-tier Tribunal allowed B & J Shopfitting Services' appeal against a £200 late-filing penalty for the 2008 partnership return, finding that the partnership's agent had reasonably relied on misleading HMRC website text and helpline advice. The tribunal held that the HMRC guidance, read in context, could reasonably be understood to apply to partnerships and that this reliance amounted to a "reasonable excuse" that persisted throughout the period of default, so the penalty was set aside.

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

Misleading official HMRC guidance can, in appropriate circumstances, constitute a "reasonable excuse" for non-compliance with filing obligations; where an agent reasonably relies on such misleading HMRC guidance, the principal may rely on that agent's reasonable excuse for the period of default.

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 decision observes (obiter) that ignorance of the law alone is not a reasonable excuse and that reliance on third parties generally will not suffice, but reliance specifically on HMRC's own guidance is materially different. It also notes that the mere absence of a penalty in guidance is not automatically a reasonable excuse, though contextual factors (such as different electronic/paper deadlines and obstacles to electronic filing) may affect reasonableness.

Warning

- The chunk includes duplicated passages and some formatting artifacts, but the facts and reasoning are clear.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML