S A Battu v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 8 August 2016
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 case is an appeal against a £100 late-filing penalty under FA 2009 for the 2013–14 self-assessment return. HMRC had sent notices and a tax calculation showing an underpayment after the appellant had changed jobs and effectively received two personal allowances; the appellant said he was PAYE‑paid, did not receive correspondence and did not understand the liability. The Tribunal found HMRC’s correspondence had been sent to the appellant’s normal address, that no reasonable excuse for non‑submission was shown, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the penalty.
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
Where a taxpayer is notified by HMRC (including receipt of a tax calculation explaining an underpayment) and fails to take steps to repay or complete a tax return, that failure does not amount to a reasonable excuse for late filing; mere reliance on having been taxed under PAYE is not, without more, a reasonable excuse once the taxpayer has been informed of the underpayment and asked to complete a return.
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 sympathetically that taxpayers may initially be confused by believing PAYE covers all tax, but that confusion alone does not excuse inaction once HMRC has explained the problem. It also observed that a telephone enquiry to HMRC explaining why a return was issued does not, without subsequent remedial steps, constitute a reasonable excuse for continued non‑submission.
Warning
- The chunk contains repeated text and some date inconsistencies (eg a 2016 date for a 2013 employment change) which may reflect transcription duplication; interpret with caution. The supplied notes contain some repeated text and minor date inconsistencies; they may be materially incomplete.