Henry Annafi v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 21 June 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 197 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned Schedule 55 late‑filing penalties for tax years 2016/17 and 2017/18. The Tribunal found Mr Annafi failed to prove a reasonable excuse for late filing in 2016/17 and upheld £1,600 of penalties, but accepted that he did send the 2016/17 paper return with an explanatory note and that, having followed HMRC telephone advice, his reliance on that advice amounted to a reasonable excuse for not filing for 2017/18; the 2017/18 penalties were discharged. The decision records rights to apply for permission to 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: medium
Where a taxpayer follows explicit HMRC advice to remedy an earlier return (for example, by filing a paper return with an explanation of cessation of self‑employment) and then reasonably relies on that advice, that conduct can amount to a reasonable excuse excusing subsequent failure to file; the First‑tier Tribunal should decide which factual assertions are proven and then assess objectively whether proven facts constitute a reasonable excuse.
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 observed that the appellant’s credibility was supported by his acceptance that he had no reasonable excuse for the 2016/17 failure, and that contemporaneous HMRC telephone advice that filing a paper return with an explanation would effect removal from self‑assessment was influential in the assessment of reasonableness.
Warning
- The chunk contains substantial repetition/duplication of the same material. Notes indicate substantial repetition/duplication and are from a single chunk; they may be incomplete.