David Owen and Son v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 3 February 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 223 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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 two £100 penalties imposed on partners for filing the partnership return for year to 5 April 2008 late. The tribunal found the partnership had to file electronically via HMRC‑specified third‑party software, the agent learned of that requirement in mid/late December 2008, chose to file by paper which arrived after the paper deadline, and therefore there was no reasonable excuse. The appeal was dismissed and the penalties 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 held that a representative partner is responsible for ensuring the partnership return is filed by the statutory filing date, and that a deliberate decision by a professional agent not to pursue available electronic filing (for example because of cost or delay in payment) does not amount to a reasonable excuse for late filing.
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: low
The tribunal indicated that HMRC publicity about electronic filing need not be extensive for a professional agent to be held to know the requirements, and noted that unpublished FTT decisions do not bind another tribunal and that binding effect depends on status and available evidence.
Warning
This chunk is repetitive and contains duplicated passages and typographical artifacts, which made extraction of a concise chronology and precise dates somewhat noisy. The provided notes are repetitive and contain typographical artifacts; the chronology and some factual detail in the extracts are noisy and may be incomplete.