Nigel Alexander Moore v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 June 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 518 (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 follower‑notice penalties under FA 2014 imposed on Nigel Moore for his use of a Montpelier Isle of Man tax scheme for 2006/07 and 2007/08. The tribunal found he had not taken the necessary corrective action by the statutory deadlines and that HMRC correctly measured the "denied advantage" as the additional tax arising from the Scheme income; HMRC's revised penalties (reduced for limited co‑operation and excluding NICs) were upheld and the appeal dismissed. Permission to apply for permission to appeal was preserved.
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
From the judgment, the operative ratio is that the "denied advantage" for follower‑notice penalties is measured by the additional tax payable resulting from the taxpayer's chosen avoidance arrangements (here, the Scheme income), not by the taxpayer's wider self‑assessment position or subsequently asserted unrelated expense claims; and that reasonableness under s214(1)(d) FA 2014 is assessed objectively, so passive reliance on scheme advisers and delay in seeking independent advice are unlikely to constitute a reasonable excuse for failing to take corrective action.
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 decision observes that First‑tier Tribunal authorities (for example Andreae) may be persuasive but are not binding and that tribunals should generally prefer contemporaneous documentary evidence over long‑after oral recollection when making findings of fact.