Benjamin Simon Alan Cooke v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 11 April 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 369 (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 Schedule 55 (late filing) and Schedule 56 (late payment) penalties arising from the appellant’s liability to the High-Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC). HMRC showed the appellant was in default (late filings for 2017–18 and 2018–19 and late payments for 2016–17 to 2018–19); the appellant relied on unfamiliarity with online services, access difficulties and repayment of Child Benefit. The tribunal found no reasonable excuse and no special circumstances warranting reduction, dismissed the appeal and left penalties in place as adjusted by HMRC (total £2,154).
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
HMRC bears the initial burden to prove events giving rise to a prima facie penalty (e.g. notices issued and defaults); once that burden is met, the taxpayer must establish an objective reasonable excuse for the period of default. Delivery of notices or secure mailbox communications is presumed absent contrary proof, and an honestly held but objectively unreasonable belief (for example, that repaying Child Benefit removes filing/payment obligations) or mere difficulty/inexperience with HMRC online services, without prompt remedial action, will not normally satisfy the reasonable excuse test.
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 (obiter) that HICBC publicity and awareness letters are widespread and that HMRC has no statutory duty to notify every potentially affected taxpayer; it also observed that financial hardship or unfamiliarity with online systems, standing alone and without timely corrective steps, is unlikely to constitute a reasonable excuse.