Andrew Sanguinetti t/a A S Construction v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 10 June 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 389 (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 case concerns Mr Andrew Sanguinetti’s appeal against a £72.03 (5%) late payment surcharge after he paid 2008–09 tax 23 days beyond the 28‑day allowance. The Tribunal found the online return filed 15 September 2009 put him on notice of the tax due and deadline, and that his unemployment/economic difficulty did not constitute a reasonable excuse because he did not contact HMRC or propose a payment arrangement. The appeal was dismissed and the surcharge confirmed.
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 filing an online return that produces an automatic tax calculation as putting the taxpayer on notice of the amount due and the payment deadline; moreover, an inability to pay due to economic circumstances (here unemployment) does not constitute a reasonable excuse where the taxpayer had the opportunity to contact HMRC or propose a payment arrangement before the surcharge trigger date and did not do so.
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 noted (obiter) that taxpayers who foresee difficulty paying should use HMRC’s online advice or make a formal payment proposal before the surcharge trigger date, and that underlying causes of inability to pay must be examined and may be excluded as reasonable excuses by statute.
Warning
Chunk contains repeated and duplicated text, but key facts and reasoning are consistent. Chunk contains repeated and duplicated text, but key facts and reasoning appear consistent.