Thomas James Niewiarowski v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2023] UKFTT 649 (TC)
Discovery assessments for HICBC under s29 TMA 1970 were initially invalid due to the interpretation in HMRC v Wilkes [2022] EWCA Civ 1612.
HMRC v Wilkes [2022] EWCA Civ 1612
Section 29 TMA 1970 was retrospectively amended by s97 FA 2022 to allow discovery assessments for HICBC.
s97 Finance Act 2022
Penalties for failure to notify HICBC liability under s7 TMA are not affected by the retrospective amendment to s29 TMA.
s7 TMA 1970, Schedule 41 Finance Act 2008
A reasonable excuse for non-notification must be both genuine and objectively reasonable, considering the taxpayer's circumstances (Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC)).
Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC)
Ignorance of the law can, in certain circumstances, constitute a reasonable excuse.
Perrin v HMRC [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC), Neal v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1988] STC 131, The Clean Car Co Ltd v Custom and Excise Commissioners [1991] VATTR 234
Article 7 ECHR (no punishment without law) was considered but not engaged, as the obligation to notify under s7 TMA was not imposed retrospectively.
Article 7, European Convention on Human Rights
Appeal dismissed.
Sharp was liable for HICBC as his income exceeded the threshold. The retrospective amendment to s29 TMA validated the discovery assessments. He did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to notify his HICBC liability under s7 TMA.
[2023] UKFTT 649 (TC)
[2024] UKFTT 277 (TC)
[2023] UKFTT 707 (TC)
[2024] UKFTT 47 (TC)
[2023] UKFTT 721 (TC)