Christopher Ryan v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 6 July 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 309 (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 a fixed penalty under Schedule 10 to the Finance Act 2003 for late submission of a land transaction return. The appellant filed the return two years late, claimed ignorance and reliance on others (HMRC or solicitors) as a "reasonable excuse" under s 97(2) FA 2003, and also cited business failure. The First-tier Tribunal rejected those arguments, holding there was no reasonable excuse or justifiable reliance on third parties, and dismissed the appeal, confirming the penalty.
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 Tribunal treated as decisive that mere lack of knowledge of the filing obligation, without evidence of justifiable reliance on a third party, does not constitute a "reasonable excuse" under s 97(2) FA 2003. Expectation that HMRC or a solicitor would advise, absent a demonstrated duty or reasonable basis to rely, was insufficient to avoid the penalty.
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 noted (without affecting the statutory test) that sympathy for the appellant’s business failure does not alter the legal standard for a reasonable excuse, and observed that HMRC would not necessarily have a duty to notify individuals of notifiable transactions or filing obligations.