Paul Tomas v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 15 (TC)
Aaron Treliving v The Commissioners for HMRC
5 July 2024
[2024] UKFTT 591 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
Someone appealed late on their taxes. They said a difficult pregnancy was why they were late. The judge said that while the pregnancy might explain some delay, it didn't explain why they were still late after the baby was born. Because they were a professional and should have known better, the appeal was dismissed.
Key Facts
- •Late appeal against income tax assessments and penalties for tax years 2014/15-2019/20 due to Higher Income Child Benefit Charge (HICBC).
- •Assessments issued April 7, 2021; penalties April 11, 2021.
- •Appeal notified to HMRC January 28, 2022 (9+ months late).
- •HMRC refused appeal; Appellant applied to the Tribunal July 20, 2023.
- •Appellant claimed reasonable excuse due to wife's high-risk pregnancy and subsequent birth of child.
- •Appellant is a chartered surveyor and director of a business.
Legal Principles
Late appeal to HMRC may be accepted if a reasonable excuse is provided and the appeal is made without unreasonable delay after the excuse ceases (Section 49, Taxes Management Act 1970).
Taxes Management Act 1970 (TMA)
The Tribunal applies the same reasonable excuse test as HMRC, but considers the evidence afresh; not a review of HMRC's decision.
Tribunal Procedure
The Perrin test for reasonable excuse involves establishing facts, proving them, objectively assessing their reasonableness, determining when the excuse ceased, and assessing whether the failure was remedied without unreasonable delay.
Christine Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC)
Ignorance of the law may be a reasonable excuse depending on the complexity of the requirement and the taxpayer's circumstances.
Christine Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed.
Appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for the late appeal. While the difficult pregnancy might have excused the delay until the baby's birth (August 2021), the subsequent delay was not justifiable. The Appellant's status as an educated professional and his awareness of the HICBC and the appeal requirement undermined his claim.