Thomas James Niewiarowski v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 14 July 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 649 (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 challenged HMRC discovery assessments and penalties for failure to notify liability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2012/13–2019/20. The Tribunal held the discovery assessments under TMA s.29 were valid because Finance Act 2022 amended s.29 and rendered the appellant's Wilkes-based argument inapplicable, and found no reasonable excuse for failure to notify, so Schedule 41 penalties were upheld at the minimum level. 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: medium

The decisive legal reasoning is that the FA 2022 amendments to TMA s.29 permit HMRC to rely on discovery assessments for HICBC in circumstances where prior Wilkes arguments would have defeated such assessments, particularly by treating the assessments as "protected assessments" under the amended statute; and that the question whether a taxpayer had a reasonable excuse for not notifying HICBC liability is assessed by reference to an objective standard of the prudent and reasonable taxpayer in the appellant's position, taking into account publicity and the taxpayer’s income history.

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 (not as a binding ratio) that HMRC has no statutory duty to notify taxpayers of potential HICBC liability or changes in the law, and that publicity by HMRC can inform the objective reasonable-taxpayer standard. It further noted that the Tribunal must apply the law as enacted and cannot adjudicate on whether the HICBC legislation is fair or unjust.

Warning

Chunk contains substantial repetition of passages and legislative extracts; reader should expect duplicated material. The supplied notes contain repetition and legislative extracts; they may be incomplete or duplicative. None

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML