Robert Bird v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 September 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 870 (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 HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2012/13–2018/19 and associated failure-to-notify penalties. The Tribunal found HMRC had established that Mr Bird's adjusted net income exceeded the HICBC threshold for 2013/14–2018/19 (so liability to HICBC was upheld for those years), varied the 2012/13 and 2018/19 assessments to correct identified numeric errors, and disallowed all failure-to-notify 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 Tribunal applied detailed scrutiny to HMRC's calculations and supporting records (SAR/IABD/RTI/payslips) and concluded that where HMRC can establish adjusted net income above the HICBC threshold the taxpayer is liable, but discovery assessments will be varied to correct demonstrated numeric or procedural errors. The Tribunal also held that penalties for failure to notify can be inappropriate where the taxpayer acted reasonably in the face of HMRC confusion and engaged proactively with HMRC.
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 noted that HMRC's internal communications and explanations about the interaction of SAR/IABD/RTI and Notices of Coding can cause confusion, and suggested HMRC should explain these matters in plain English because their technical nature is not readily understood by most taxpayers.