Jaroslaw Krason v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 7 May 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 675 (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 concerned Schedule 24 penalties totalling £224,750 imposed on Mr Krason for alleged "deliberate and concealed" inaccuracies in his self‑assessment returns (alternatively carelessness). The First‑tier Tribunal found Mr Krason honest, lacked financial knowledge, relied on his long‑standing accountant Moor Green/Mr Davood, did not understand the trust scheme or key documents and had no blind‑eye knowledge. Applying the statutory tests and authorities, the Tribunal concluded he acted neither deliberately nor carelessly and cancelled the penalties; it also directed HMRC to explain a previously quoted £164,000 figure and invited HMRC to review for possible costs of about £9,000.
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 finding of deliberate inaccuracy under Sch 24 requires subjective intention to mislead (or recklessness), which cannot be inferred from mere naivety, lack of financial knowledge or reliance on a professional adviser; and assessment of carelessness is to be made by reference to the reasonable taxpayer in the appellant’s specific position (including language ability, experience and reliance on advisers). Applying those principles, lack of understanding and reliance on a trusted adviser negated both deliberate behaviour and carelessness in this case.
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 that reliance on a long‑standing professional adviser with HMRC experience and recognised memberships can be a relevant factor tending against carelessness for a taxpayer lacking financial knowledge, and that redactions made by a taxpayer’s representative without the taxpayer’s knowledge do not necessarily prove concealment by the taxpayer.