Robert E Clark v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 9 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 302 (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 concerns Mr Robert E Clark’s appeal against a P800 Tax Calculation showing an £806.60 underpayment for 2009–10 after HMRC accept errors in PAYE coding and allowances. HMRC applied to strike out the appeal as non-appealable; the Tribunal refused, finding it was not plain and obvious the appeal could not succeed and directed a substantive hearing on jurisdictional and public law questions. The Tribunal held it arguable that the Tax Calculation could amount to an assessment under the TMA and that ESC A19’s exceptional limb might apply on the facts. HMRC’s strike-out application was dismissed and further directions were given for a hearing.
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
From the judgment as reflected in the notes, a PAYE “informal” Tax Calculation may, depending on its form and content, constitute an assessment under TMA provisions (s29/30A) and thus attract appeal rights under s31; similarly, ESC A19’s exceptional limb can be engaged where HMRC have failed more than once to make proper use of information supplied. No definitive broader legal rule beyond these case-specific findings is established in the notes.
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 record observations that Tribunals may determine public law and jurisdictional issues relevant to appeals (following Sales J guidance) and that striking-out applications should be used sparingly because they deprive a party of the right to be heard; these appear as non-binding commentary rather than core holdings.