Mr R G McAlpin Representative partner in Mr R G McAlpin and Mrs P A McAlpin t/a Newtons Home Improvements v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 3 November 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 538 (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 £100 penalties on two partners for late filing of a partnership return for the year to 5 April 2008. The Tribunal held a blank paper partnership return served as a valid statutory notice under s12AA TMA, that the paper return was filed late (and later corrected) with no reasonable excuse for the period of default, and that HMRC validly prescribed electronic filing method/form and were not obliged to provide free software. The penalties were confirmed and the appeal 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
A blank paper partnership return can constitute the statutory "notice" requiring submission under s12AA TMA; HMRC may prescribe the form and method of electronic partnership returns by directions and under the Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) Regulations 2003 (including specifying use of third‑party tested software), and individual partners’ self‑assessment returns do not satisfy the separate statutory requirement for a partnership return.
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 noted that arguments grounded in the Taxpayers’ Charter, the Human Rights Act, or a residual duty of care did not assist the appellants and did not compel HMRC to provide free software. The Tribunal also observed that late service of HMRC bundles was not prejudicial in this case and excluded transcripts where fairness required.