Waring Investments Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 10 June 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 387 (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
Waring Investments failed to deliver its P35 return by the 20 May 2010 deadline and did not successfully file online until 2 August 2010. The Tribunal found there was no reasonable excuse for the delay and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty determination (which the Tribunal treated as arising under the existing TMA/regulation 73 delivery regime rather than the new online-specific penalty regulation).
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
The Tribunal’s reasoning supports that the statutory requirement to deliver a P35 by the deadline is distinct from any separate obligation to file online, and that unsuccessful attempts to enrol online do not automatically constitute a reasonable excuse for late delivery where the taxpayer could reasonably have used available alternative means (for example by submitting a paper return) to comply by the deadline.
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 practical difficulties with online systems—such as problems with passwords, activation codes or site navigation—may be frustrating but do not necessarily amount to a reasonable excuse; likewise, submitting a paper return before the deadline would have avoided penalty under the delivery provision even if the online-specific penalty regime might differ.