Darren Mynett v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 24 July 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 652 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

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: medium

This appeal concerned default surcharge notices totalling £1,913.62 issued to a VAT-registered sole trader for periods 06/2021 and 09/2021. The Tribunal found the notices were validly served at the VAT address on HMRC’s records and that the appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for the late returns/payments. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharges upheld.

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 treated service by post to the last or usual place of business recorded by HMRC as effective for surcharge liability notices under the statutory provisions in issue, and held that the taxpayer’s failure to update VAT contact details and mere oversight did not constitute a reasonable excuse for late VAT returns/payments in these circumstances.

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 (agreement with cited authorities) that a fourth procedural remediation step from Perrin relating to delay in remediation does not apply to default surcharges, and observed that lack of prior defaults or pandemic-related financial difficulty did not amount to a reasonable excuse on the facts of this case.

Warning

The chunk contains significant repetition of the same text and procedural material. Notes contain significant repetition and are extracted from a single chunk; they appear complete on outcome and reasoning but may omit detailed procedural or evidential minutiae.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML