Daniel Simmonite v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 August 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 721 (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 discovery assessments and Schedule 41 penalties for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2017/18. The Tribunal held that amendments in the Finance Act 2022 restored HMRC's power to make discovery assessments for HICBC and applied retrospectively in this case, so the assessments stand and remain payable. The Tribunal also found the August 2017 telephone call to the Child Benefit Office did not amount to notification under s7 TMA, but concluded the appellant had an objectively reasonable excuse for failing to notify and therefore was not liable to penalties.
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 amendments in FA 2022 can validate HMRC discovery assessments for HICBC and operate retrospectively unless the statutory exception conditions are met; and a taxpayer's communication must be addressed to the correct HMRC department and meet s7 TMA formal requirements to constitute valid notification.
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 comments that earlier publicity campaigns (2012–13) have limited relevance to taxpayers who were not parents or higher-rate taxpayers at the time, and that the staleness of HMRC-held information does not prevent a valid discovery under TMA (citing Tooth).