Paul Anthony Haigh v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 5 September 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 810 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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: high
Mr Haigh sought to challenge HMRC's refusal to accept a Fixed Protection 2012 (FP 2012) notice which he submitted on 24 July 2022, some ten years after the 5 April 2012 statutory deadline. The First-tier Tribunal held that regulation 4 required the prescribed form to be completed, signed, dated and received by HMRC on or before 5 April 2012, that there is no reasonable-excuse provision permitting late acceptance in the FP 2012 Regulations, and that the FtT’s appeal jurisdiction under reg 7 is limited to whether the reg 4 requirements were met. The appeal was dismissed.
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: high
The binding ratio is that a paragraph 14 (FP 2012) notice only confers entitlement to FP 2012 if the prescribed form was received by HMRC by the deadline in reg 4(2)(b)(i) (5 April 2012), and that an appeal under reg 7(3) is confined to determining whether the statutory requirements of reg 4 were satisfied; absent an express statutory power (such as a reasonable-excuse provision), the FtT has no jurisdiction to direct acceptance of a late notice or to entertain public-law challenges to HMRC’s exercise of discretion in this context.
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 observed (non-bindingly) that the 2006 Regulations expressly allowed consideration of reasonable excuse for late notifications whereas the FP 2012 Regulations do not, and noted that where a taxpayer seeks to challenge HMRC’s exercise of discretion or raise public-law points the appropriate remedy may be judicial review rather than an appeal to the FtT.