Davina Batchelor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 19 August 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 392 (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 by Miss Davina Batchelor challenged two HMRC surcharges for late payment of 2007–08 income tax. The Tribunal found she paid late because she lacked funds and was unemployed, but there was no evidence of any underlying cause for that insufficiency when the tax was due. Given the statutory exclusion of inability to pay as a reasonable excuse, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and confirmed both surcharges.

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

Where the statute excludes inability to pay as a reasonable excuse, a taxpayer’s mere lack of funds or unemployment is not a reasonable excuse for late payment; to succeed, a taxpayer must provide evidence of an underlying cause for the insufficiency of funds existing at the payment due date.

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 notes that consideration should be given to whether an underlying cause for insufficiency of funds exists (drawing on analogous authority), and records a procedural point that full written findings should be provided before seeking permission to appeal following a summary decision.

Warning

The chunk contains duplicated passages and a minor chronological/internal dating inconsistency in the stated outstanding balances (references to 2009 dates). The provided notes contain duplicated passages and a minor internal dating/inconsistency in outstanding-balance dates, so the record may be materially incomplete.