William Kealey & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 14 December 2022
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 108 (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 £8,300 of late-filing CIS penalties for a father-and-son groundworks partnership who relied on a now-deceased accountant. The tribunal found they had not exercised reasonable care, produced no witness evidence, and caused repeated late filings despite receiving multiple penalty notices. No special circumstances justified reduction, and the penalties were held not disproportionate; 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 tribunal treated repeated receipt of penalty notices as putting taxpayers on notice and undermining reliance on a third party; taxpayers remain responsible for ensuring statutory returns (including nil returns) are filed even when they use an agent. Cancellation of some late notices due to HMRC delay did not negate that outstanding overdue returns remained and that the appellants had been alerted to the problem.
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 indicates, as non-binding commentary, that casual text-message exchanges do not suffice without supporting evidence to show reasonable care or adequate supervision, and that reliance on a deceased accountant without prompt corrective action after multiple notices is unlikely to constitute a reasonable excuse.