Jonathan Harwood v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 8 December 2023
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 46 (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 HMRC discovery assessments and failure-to-notify penalties for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2016/17–2018/19. The tribunal found the appellant did not receive HMRC’s 2019 “nudge” and final reminder, accepted his ignorance of the law as a reasonable excuse until HMRC’s April 2021 letter, allowed the penalties to be cancelled, upheld the assessments for 2017/18 and 2018/19, and set aside the 2016/17 assessment as time-barred.
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
A tribunal may accept that HMRC correspondence was posted but must decide receipt on the balance of probabilities, and credible oral evidence of non-receipt can rebut the presumption of posting; further, ignorance of the law can amount to a reasonable excuse for failure to notify HICBC in appropriate circumstances until objective notice is given.
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 judgment suggests it is permissible as a matter of common sense for a tribunal to apply the Interpretation Act’s deeming approach to non‑legislative HMRC correspondence when assessing whether a taxpayer was put on notice, and notes that ordinary domestic circumstances (such as spouses not discussing claim-form details years earlier) may make continued unawareness of later tax consequences objectively reasonable.