Anthony Wood t/a Propave v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 23 February 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 136 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 whether Mr Anthony Wood (t/a Propave) had a "reasonable excuse" for missing a self-assessment payment on account due 31 July 2009, leading HMRC to withdraw his gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme. The First-tier Tribunal accepted his evidence that he genuinely misunderstood public announcements and believed payments could be spread without a formal time-to-pay arrangement, and also took into account that withdrawal would have disproportionate economic consequences. The tribunal allowed the appeal and set aside the withdrawal of gross payment status.

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 tribunal's decision, a genuine taxpayer misunderstanding, prompted by general public announcements about spreading payments, can amount to a "reasonable excuse" for late payment; and the prospect of severe and disproportionate economic consequences from enforcement (loss of livelihood) is a relevant factor that can make an excuse reasonable.

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 notes record reliance on earlier authority that "reasonable excuse" must be judged in light of all the circumstances (Rowland v HMRC) and agree with a prior decision (Terence Bruns t/a T K Fabrications v HMRC) that disproportionate consequences of withdrawing gross payment status may render an excuse reasonable even without other grounds; these appear as persuasive observations rather than novel binding propositions.