The Research & Development Partnership Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 30 November 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 328 (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 concerned appeals against penalties imposed under para 29, Sch 18 Finance Act 1998 for failure to comply with para 27 information notices in HMRC enquiries into the Appellant's 2005 and 2007 periods. The tribunal held that reliance on the Appellant's accountants, Marriotts, could amount to a "reasonable excuse" in direct tax, and on these facts—complex R&D issues and linked group enquiries—found the Appellant had a reasonable excuse. The tribunal allowed the appeals and set aside the fixed and daily penalties.
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's ratio is that in direct tax proceedings, and absent a statutory exclusion, reliance on a third party (such as an agent or accountant) can constitute a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with information notices; whether such reliance is reasonable depends on the character and complexity of the task required, with complex or specialist matters more likely to justify reliance.
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 judgment noted (obiter) that the existence of a VAT-specific statutory exclusion of reliance on a third party is indicative but does not determine the position in direct tax, and that it is appropriate to consider the nature of the task when assessing the reasonableness of reliance on an agent.
Warning
- none