Miss M M Anderson (Deceased) v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Decision date: 22 September 2009

Neutral citation: Neutral citation not available

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 HMRC's discovery assessment of 2 September 2005 against Miss Anderson was valid under TMA s29, either because incorrect tax credit treatment on her return arose from negligent conduct (s29(4)) or because HMRC could be taken to have been put on notice by information made available to them (s29(5)). The Tribunal held the chargeable event certificate sent by the insurer to HMRC was not information made available by the taxpayer and so s29(5) did not prevent the assessment, and it found the incorrect tax credit claim was attributable to negligent conduct so that s29(4) was satisfied. The appeal was dismissed.

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

The Tribunal treated “information made available” for s29(5)/(6) as limited to information produced or furnished by the taxpayer (or reasonably inferable from that material), and it held that a discovery assessment under s29 may be valid where an otherwise incorrect return is shown to result from negligent conduct by the taxpayer or someone acting on her behalf.

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 expressed a preference for a restrictive, literal approach to s29(5), noted that the taxpayer’s ill-health did not negate the finding of negligence on the facts, and observed that HMRC’s decision not to pursue penalties did not amount to acceptance that there was no negligence.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML