Jeremy Francis Herrmann v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 715 (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
This appeal concerned whether HMRC could, by reallocating payments after the relevant dates, treat earlier timely payments as unpaid and so trigger late payment surcharges (2008/09 & 2009/10) and late payment penalties (2020/21 & 2021/22). The First-tier Tribunal held the statutory tests are snapshot questions to be decided at the statutory trigger dates and that HMRC’s retrospective reallocation could not create a default on those dates. The taxpayer’s appeals were allowed.
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 ratio is that provisions imposing surcharges or late payment penalties require an assessment of whether the tax was unpaid or a person failed to pay at the specific statutory trigger date (a "snapshot" inquiry); a subsequent administrative reallocation by HMRC cannot retrospectively turn an earlier timely payment into non-payment at that date and so cannot validly create liability for those surcharges or penalties.
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 (obiter) that the statutory purpose of encouraging timely payment did not justify a purposive reading that would allow retrospective creation of late-payment liability by reallocations, and noted reallocations are administrative exercises under HMRC’s care and management powers rather than statutory deeming devices converting timely payments into defaults.