Mr Simon Cooper v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 10 February 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 112 (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

Mr Cooper appealed a default surcharge for late payment of his 2008–09 tax; HMRC received payment on 1 March 2010 (treated as 1 March) after the 28 February due date, making the surcharge provisions applicable. The Tribunal, after hearing in the appellant's absence under Rule 33, dismissed the appeal, finding no reasonable excuse that persisted throughout the default period and rejecting the proportionality/Human Rights challenge; the surcharge was reduced on amendment to £413.43 and confirmed.

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

From the judgment: (1) the relevant date for surcharge purposes is the date HMRC receives the payment, not the date the payer's bank account is debited; (2) a taxpayer must demonstrate a reasonable excuse that lasts throughout the entire period of default for the surcharge to be set aside; and (3) proportionality/Human Rights challenges can be distinguished or rejected where statutory mitigation powers and legislative context differ.

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 that electronic payments commonly require three banking days to clear and that making a payment on 26 February did not guarantee receipt by 28 February if a weekend intervened. It also observed that prior informal discussions by HMRC about a bounced cheque do not amount to a waiver of the statutory surcharge obligation.

Warning

Text contains repeated/duplicated passages; some paragraphs recur verbatim. Notes contain repeated and duplicated passages and may be somewhat noisy.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML