Christopher Diball v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 28 July 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 657 (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 a 20% failure-to-notify penalty under the higher income child benefit charge (HICBC) for 2018/19, assessed after HMRC correspondence and an awareness letter. The Tribunal found HMRC had sent the December 2019 awareness letter but the appellant did not receive it, rejected ignorance of the law and non-receipt as a reasonable excuse, treated the disclosure as prompted, and upheld the penalty. 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
From the judgment as summarised, the binding reasoning is that non-receipt of an HMRC awareness letter—where there is evidence of dispatch—does not by itself constitute a reasonable excuse for failure to notify HICBC; and where a taxpayer first becomes aware of a liability following HMRC contact the disclosure is treated as prompted for penalty mitigation purposes.
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 that HMRC is not under a statutory duty to inform all taxpayers of rule changes and that failure to inform does not render ignorance objectively reasonable. It also commented that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to review the fairness of HMRC penalty policy or administrative practices such as reminder letters, which are matters for HMRC, Parliament or judicial review.