Mr C V Carden & Mrs J Carden t/a Platinum World Travel v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 22 December 2010

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 23 (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 Mr and Mrs Carden's failure to comply with Schedule 36 information notices requiring certified lists of bank accounts and bank statements in connection with an HMRC enquiry into the partnership return to 5 April 2007. The First-tier Tribunal found the requested documents were reasonably required to resolve discrepancies, rejected the appellants' asserted excuses (including lack of funds and reliance on others), and dismissed the appeal, upholding £300 penalties against each appellant.

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 applied that a Schedule 36 information notice will be validly upheld where the requested documents are reasonably required to check a taxpayer’s tax position and the taxpayer has not supplied a satisfactory explanation for relevant discrepancies; further, lack of funds to obtain bank statements does not constitute a reasonable excuse for non-compliance in the circumstances of this case.

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 notes record statements to the effect that HMRC offering to obtain bank statements from the bank does not remove the taxpayer’s liability for associated costs, and that an appellant’s offer to consent to HMRC inspecting an account may be of limited effect where HMRC do not proceed by that route; these observations appear as ancillary commentary rather than central holdings.

Warning

- The chunk contains substantial repetition of the same material (procedural and factual paragraphs duplicated).

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML