Mr Jeffrey Sasin v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 29 July 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 354 (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 whether an employer (Mr Sasin) should have been given a regulation 72(5) direction relieving it from PAYE under-deductions for 2004/05–2007/08 in respect of an employee whose P45 showed code suffix H. The Tribunal found the employer had received annual employer notices (P7X/P9X) saying suffix H was no longer valid and that employers should contact HMRC if H was being carried forward, yet the employer did not contact HMRC. The Tribunal held the employer had not taken reasonable care under regulation 72(3)(a) and dismissed the appeal, upholding HMRC’s refusal to issue the direction.
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
Where an employer receives clear general employer notices indicating that a previously used tax-code suffix (here “H”) is no longer valid and is specifically instructed to contact HMRC if that suffix is being carried forward, the employer may be required to contact HMRC to obtain the correct code; failure to act on such repeated statutory notices can amount to not having “taken reasonable care” under regulation 72(3)(a), so relief under regulation 72(5) may be refused.
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 expressed sympathy for the employer because HMRC had no record of receiving the original P45 and did not alert the employer despite annual returns, but said that such sympathy did not remove the employer’s obligation to act on the P7X/P9X notices. The Tribunal also commented that, although the PAYE regulations do not expressly require treating general notices as issuing specific codes, allowing employers to ignore clear notices would defeat the PAYE regime’s purpose.