Dingle Clark v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 19 April 2011

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 256 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

This appeal concerned whether Mr Dingle Clark had a reasonable excuse for late VAT payment where he handed cash and a stamped bank giro credit slip to the Bank of England on 6 October 2009 but HMRC's records showed receipt on 9 October. The First-tier Tribunal found it could not conclude payment was not received by the due date and accepted that Mr Clark reasonably expected the cash handed over on 6 October would result in HMRC receiving the payment by 7 October. The tribunal held that Mr Clark established a reasonable excuse under s.59(7)(a) and allowed the surcharge appeal.

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

A taxpayer may have a reasonable excuse for a late-recorded payment where, on the facts, there was a reasonable expectation that handing over cash to a bank (with evidence such as a stamped giro slip) would result in the payment being received by the due date; an internal HMRC recording delay does not necessarily displace the factual conclusion that payment was effectively made when the cash was handed over.

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 indicate comments that the Payment Services Directive may be irrelevant to immediate-value cash payments and that prior HMRC notification about payment-method recording issues would not automatically preclude a finding of reasonable excuse, but these points do not appear to be essential to the tribunal’s decision.

Warning

Text is repetitive and contains duplicated passages; factual narrative is clear despite repetition.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML