David Russell v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 June 2022
Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 185 (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 is an appeal by Mr David Russell against HMRC penalties for late self‑assessment filing (Schedule 55 FA 2009) and late payment of the Higher Income Child Benefit Charge (Schedule 56 FA 2009) for 2016/17–2018/19. The tribunal found HMRC had not proved the date or contents of a notice to file and quashed £300 of fixed filing penalties, but upheld £566 of late‑payment penalties because Mr Russell had no objectively reasonable excuse or qualifying special circumstances. HMRC's use of an unrelated 2012/13 campaign letter in its internal review was an irrelevant factor but did not invalidate the decision.
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
The tribunal decided that HMRC must produce sufficient evidence of the date and contents of any notice to file (or proof of posting) to establish the filing due date for Schedule 55 fixed penalties; without that proof HMRC cannot sustain a late‑filing penalty. It also held that a taxpayer’s ignorance of obligations does not amount to a reasonable excuse where it was objectively reasonable in the circumstances to investigate entitlement and payment obligations.
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 contains observations that a general pre‑children campaign letter sent before children were born is unlikely to be relevant evidence of later awareness of child benefit obligations, and that financial hardship or mental health effects are not automatically “special circumstances” for avoiding penalties because inability to pay is excluded from special‑circumstances consideration.