Scott Thompson v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 12 February 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 138 (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 case concerned a very late appeal by Scott Thompson against a Schedule 24 penalty imposed by HMRC for inaccuracies in his 2014 self-assessment. The FTT allowed the late appeal, held HMRC had not proved deliberate behaviour (so the deliberate-behaviour penalty was cancelled), but found the appellant had failed to take reasonable care and was therefore liable to a carelessness penalty, with HMRC to reassess the penalty amount.
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 a taxpayer’s clear contemporaneous letter contesting a penalty as capable of constituting an effective appeal for the purposes of exercising discretion to admit a very late appeal. On the substance, deliberate inaccuracy requires intent to mislead, which HMRC had not proved on these facts; by contrast, reliance on advisers and failure to spot omissions can amount to a failure to take reasonable care, justifying a carelessness 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 notes indicate the tribunal considered the three-stage Denton/Martland approach appropriate when deciding permission to appeal out of time, and suggested that an unrepresented litigant’s plainly expressed non-acceptance of a penalty may reasonably be construed as an appeal. These points were treated as obiter in the notes.
Warning
- Some relevant HMRC documents (letters of 6 Nov 2019 and penalty determination) were missing from the bundle, limiting primary evidence. Some HMRC documents (including letters of 6 Nov 2019 and the penalty determination) were missing from the bundle, so the notes may be materially incomplete.