Sayrun Lamuth v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 11 July 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 856 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 Schedule 56 late payment penalties for 2020/21–2022/23 imposed on Ms Lamuth, who mistakenly believed her rental income need not be declared and who had sought HMRC's advice in 2017 but received no reply. The Tribunal found the penalties were correctly assessed and notified but that Ms Lamuth had a reasonable excuse — a genuine mistake about liability coupled with attempts to obtain HMRC guidance and HMRC’s failure to reply — and accordingly quashed the penalties. The Tribunal also held that, alternatively, HMRC’s failure to respond in 2017 would have been a special circumstance justifying reduction to zero.

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 taxpayer’s genuine mistaken belief about tax liability, when combined with a timely attempt to obtain clarification from HMRC and an absence of any reply from HMRC, can constitute a “reasonable excuse” under paragraph 16 of Schedule 56 to justify quashing late payment penalties; that excuse ceases once the taxpayer receives the tax calculation and is informed of the amount due.

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 observed (but did not treat as decisive) that it was reasonable for the appellant to wait for HMRC’s calculation before making payment where HMRC had previously failed to respond to inquiries, and noted a factual point that the appellant might have declared more income than due, potentially leading to overpayment which HMRC may investigate.