T. PA Accountancy Services Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 9 September 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 345 (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

T. PA Accountancy Services Ltd appealed a 20% late filing penalty for a company tax return for accounting period ending 30.9.18; HMRC assessed the return as filed on 13.1.21, 836 days late, and imposed a penalty of £4,343.70. The appellant relied on a clerical or IRIS software error and said a submission had been made on 6.11.19, but the Tribunal found that submission related to APE 30.9.19, rejected the appellant's account as not credible, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty.

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

The Tribunal held that an agent or accountancy firm who is on notice of a risk of erroneous electronic submissions must verify that filings have been received for the correct period; failure to check and thereby permit prolonged non-filing is not an objectively reasonable excuse for late filing. In short, being aware of prior issues imposes a duty to confirm correct electronic delivery, and mere clerical/software error in that context will typically not suffice as 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 and applied the Upper Tribunal's stepwise approach to assessing "reasonable excuse" (identify asserted facts, determine which are proven, assess objectively in context, and consider whether there was unreasonable delay in remedying the failure). It also recorded procedural observations that the remote video hearing and bundle arrangements were sufficient for the case.

Warning

Chunk contains substantial duplicated text and repeated passages. Notes contain duplicated and repeated passages and may be noisy.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML