Matthew Atkin v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 786 (TC)
Claire Marie Walker v The Commissioners for HMRC
29 September 2023
[2023] UKFTT 865 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
The tax office said they sent a late filing penalty notice, but couldn't prove it. The person who owed taxes said she didn't get the notice. The judge sided with the taxpayer because the tax office didn't have enough proof.
Key Facts
- •Appeal against late filing penalties for the tax year ending 5 April 2021.
- •HMRC claimed electronic service of notices, which the appellant disputed.
- •Penalties totaled £1300.
- •Appellant filed her return electronically on 6 October 2022 after receiving a letter from HMRC on 29 September 2022.
- •HMRC relied on system records to prove service but failed to provide sufficient evidence.
- •Appellant claimed a reasonable excuse based on reliance on her husband to file the return.
Legal Principles
HMRC must prove service of penalty notices.
Paragraph 18(1), Schedule 55, Finance Act 2009
Electronic service is governed by the Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) Regulations 2003.
Income and Corporation Taxes (Electronic Communications) Regulations 2003 (2003/282)
Regulation 6 provides a rebuttable presumption of electronic delivery if HMRC provides a certified printout.
Regulation 6, Electronic Communications Regulations 2003
Regulation 9 provides a rebuttable presumption of delivery if recorded on an official computer system.
Regulation 9, Electronic Communications Regulations 2003
Reasonable excuse defence requires objective assessment of taxpayer's actions.
Christine Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 0156 (TCC), paragraph [81]
Outcomes
Appeal allowed.
HMRC failed to prove service of the penalty notices. The evidence presented was insufficient and incomprehensible.
Reasonable excuse defence rejected.
Appellant failed to take reasonable care to ensure the return was filed, relying on her husband without sufficient verification.