Matthew Grimmer v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 119 (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 for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2015/16–2019/20 and related Schedule 41 penalties. The Tribunal found the 2017/18–2019/20 discovery assessments were in time and dismissed those appeals, but concluded the 2015/16 and 2016/17 assessments were out of time because HMRC could not rely on extended limitations; those two assessments were allowed. All Schedule 41 penalties were cancelled after the Tribunal accepted Mr Grimmer had a reasonable excuse for non-notification and acted without unreasonable delay once aware.
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 Tribunal treated s97(5)(b) FA 2022 as requiring an identifiable, express challenge to the Wilkes-type protected-issue by the relevant cutoff (here 30 June 2021) for an assessment to be excluded as a protected assessment; general or indirect correspondence will not suffice. The Tribunal also held that ignorance of a tax obligation can, judged objectively against the taxpayer’s situation, amount to a reasonable excuse that prevents HMRC relying on extended assessment time limits and can excuse failure-to-notify penalties, where the taxpayer engages promptly once aware.
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 varying First-tier Tribunal approaches to what constitutes “raising” the s97 issue and that some decisions on that point are under appeal, indicating unsettled practice. It also observes that HMRC has no general legal duty to notify taxpayers of notification obligations, though HMRC communications and publicity can be relevant when assessing reasonable excuse; and that procedural fairness may justify admitting late appeals where HMRC does not oppose and the matter is listed for substantive hearing.