Charles Collier & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 November 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 993 (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 First-tier Tribunal appeal concerned HMRC assessments, amendments and penalties for Mr Collier and his partnership for years 2007–2011, and whether the tax loss was caused deliberately (20-year time limit) or only by carelessness/negligence (6-year limit). The Tribunal found HMRC had not proved deliberate behaviour or "blind-eye" knowledge by Mr Collier; the omissions arose from negligent/careless conduct. As a result, the later assessments and amendments were out of time under the six-year limit and were invalid, and the related penalties fell away.
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: high
Where HMRC cannot prove that a taxpayer subjectively knew a return or document was erroneous and intended HMRC to rely on it (i.e. deliberate inaccuracy or blind-eye knowledge), the loss is not deliberate; omissions shown to be negligent or careless fall within the six-year limitation period, so assessments made after six years are invalid.
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 cautioned against equating recklessness with deliberate inaccuracy and treated several authorities as addressing blind-eye knowledge rather than mere recklessness. It also noted limited evidential value in statements from an HMRC officer who had not been involved in the original enquiries.