David Thompson v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 9 May 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 375 (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 challenged HMRC discovery assessments for the High Income Child Benefit Charge for 2016/17–2019/20 and associated failure-to-notify penalties. The First-tier Tribunal found the discovery was made on 17 May 2021, the assessment process validly continued and issued by a different officer, and that the appellant had received HMRC correspondence (and was aware by 13 January 2020) so had no reasonable excuse for non-notification. The appeals against the assessments and penalties were 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
Where there is evidence that one HMRC officer made a discovery and a second officer validly continued the assessment process, the assessment issued by the second officer can be valid; and evidence that informational letters were sent to the taxpayer’s correct address (not returned undelivered), together with subsequent taxpayer conduct consistent with awareness, can defeat a reasonable-excuse claim of non-receipt.
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 applied an Interpretation Act-style deeming approach to ordinary postal service when assessing receipt of non-statutory HMRC letters as a commonsense tool. It also commented on authorities and differing tribunal approaches about whether ignorance of the law can be a reasonable excuse, noting an objective, taxpayer-specific test, but did not establish a definitive rule on that point.