Matthew Atkin v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 September 2024
Neutral citation: [2024] UKFTT 786 (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 appeal concerned Schedule 55 late filing penalties for 2021–22 imposed on Mr Atkin and whether HMRC validly served the notice to file and subsequent penalty notifications, and whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse or special circumstances. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that HMRC validly served the notices (supported by system and print/dispatch records and an unchallenged Regulation 6 certificate), that the appellant had no reasonable excuse (late attempts to register and contact HMRC after the deadline did not excuse the late filing), and that there were no special circumstances. The Tribunal refused permission to bring the appeal out of time under the Martland test and dismissed the substantive 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
The judgment supports that where a taxpayer does not credibly dispute receipt, evidence such as HMRC system entries, Communisis print/dispatch records, address history and an unchallenged Regulation 6 certificate is sufficient on the balance of probabilities to infer valid service of notices; and that attempts to set up online access or contact HMRC after the filing deadline do not ordinarily amount to a reasonable excuse for failure to file on time.
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 decision includes statements that the Tribunal may proceed in an appellant’s absence if notice of the hearing was given, grounds were provided, and the appellant is unlikely to add materially to the evidence; and that financial hardship or inability to pay is not a reasonable excuse and does not ordinarily amount to special circumstances under Schedule 55.