Denise Howarth v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 1 May 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 499 (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 FTT decision concerned late appeals by Denise Howarth against £1,600 of penalties for a 2020–21 tax return said to be late. The Tribunal admitted the appeals despite substantial delay and found that the Appellant had a reasonable excuse because she reasonably believed she had submitted the online return (having taken a contemporaneous screenshot) and was unaware of any failed submission until March 2023. The appeals were allowed and the penalties cancelled; the Tribunal did not reach the issue of special reduction.
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’s operative reasoning was that where a taxpayer with relatively simple affairs reasonably believes the online submission process is complete — supported by contemporaneous actions (eg a screenshot) — that belief can constitute an objectively reasonable excuse for late filing if the taxpayer did not receive or was unaware of HMRC electronic notifications; and that admission of late appeals should be assessed by a three-stage Denton-style inquiry (length of delay, reasons for default, and overall balance including prejudice and merits).
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 included non-binding observations that generic HMRC email alerts that give no indication of urgency may reasonably be treated as indistinguishable from spam by an inadvertently opted-in taxpayer, and that HMRC could, in principle, check PTA login records to detect non-use; it also suggested that prejudice to HMRC from admitting routine late appeals may be slight where additional resource demands are not materially different.