Mark Goodall v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 December 2022
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 18 (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 Schedule 41 penalty for failing to notify liability to the High Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC) for 2019–20 after HMRC sent a December 2019 "nudge" letter. The tribunal accepted HMRC likely posted the letter but found, on the balance of probabilities, that the appellant did not receive it and so was not put on notice; his ignorance of the obligation, given he was a PAYE-only employee outside self‑assessment, constituted a reasonable excuse. The appeal was allowed and the 2019–20 penalty discharged.
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
A presumption of regularity may support an inference that a non‑statutory HMRC letter was posted, but that inference can be displaced by credible evidence of non‑receipt. Where a taxpayer is a PAYE‑only employee outside self‑assessment and was not otherwise put on notice of a change, ignorance of the HICBC can amount to a reasonable excuse judged objectively against the taxpayer’s circumstances.
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 suggested it is not incumbent on PAYE‑only taxpayers to trawl HMRC publicity or websites on the off‑chance a change might affect them, and noted a meaningful distinction between taxpayers within self‑assessment (more likely to be on notice) and those outside it for the reasonable‑excuse inquiry.