Sunday Salokun v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 6 November 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 962 (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 HMRC capital gains tax assessments for 2014/15 and 2015/16 and related penalty assessments for 2014/15, 2015/16 and 2016/17 arising from the appellant’s failure to declare gains on four property disposals. The First-tier Tribunal found the tax assessments were valid and in time, and that the inaccuracies were deliberate (but not concealed), so dismissed the appeals against the assessments and penalties. The Tribunal ordered a reduction of the 2015/16 and 2016/17 penalties in line with HMRC’s revised computations but upheld the 2014/15 penalty.

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

The Tribunal treated the appellant’s frank admission that gains were undeclared and his stated decision not to disclose (to use proceeds for his wife’s care) as supporting a finding of deliberate inaccuracy for penalty purposes; accordingly, deliberate (though not concealed) nondisclosure can justify penalties and sustain HMRC assessments properly issued and in time.

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 indicated that non‑statutory human rights materials cited by the appellant (e.g. the Universal Declaration) did not assist in contesting tax or penalty liabilities, and that family illness or caregiving responsibilities, while sympathetic, did not amount to special circumstances justifying penalty reduction where they were not shown to be unique or sufficiently exceptional.