Sajmir Kera v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 17 September 2020
Neutral citation: Neutral citation not available
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned late payment penalties under Schedule 56 FA 2009. HMRC conceded the 2016–17 penalties so that part of the appeal succeeded, but the Tribunal upheld the £284 penalty for 2017–18, finding no reasonable excuse covering the whole default period and no basis to reduce the penalty. Interest was confirmed as payable.
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 treated the binding principle as that a taxpayer must demonstrate a reasonable excuse that persists for the entire period of default; delay in registration or earlier difficulties does not automatically excuse later non-payment once the taxpayer has a UTR and knows the due date. Further, the Tribunal may only overturn HMRC’s decision under paragraph 9 (special reduction) if HMRC’s decision was flawed in the judicial-review sense.
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 indicated that assertions of family ill‑health or personal difficulties require supporting particulars to amount to a reasonable excuse, and that where a taxpayer has calculated their own liability and received notice of amounts due they are expected to take steps to pay or to explain a required delay.