Mary Simpkins v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 924 (TC)
Richard Monks v The Commissioners for HMRC
4 October 2023
[2023] UKFTT 853 (TC)
First-tier Tribunal
HMRC sent a letter about a tax return, and a follow-up letter asking for more information. The first letter arrived late, so it was deemed invalid. However, HMRC had good reason to suspect the taxpayer hadn't reported all their income, so the second letter asking for more information was allowed.
Key Facts
- •HMRC issued a Notice of Enquiry (Enquiry) on 27 January 2022 regarding the appellant's 2019/20 tax return.
- •HMRC issued an Information Notice (Notice) on 3 March 2022 after the requested information from the Enquiry wasn't received.
- •The appellant argued the Enquiry was invalid as it wasn't received within the statutory timeframe.
- •The appellant also argued the Notice was invalid as the information requested wasn't reasonably required.
- •HMRC relied on a Post Office receipt showing the Enquiry was posted on 27 January 2022 and the Interpretation Act 1978 for deemed service.
- •The appellant provided evidence suggesting the Enquiry was received on 1 February 2022.
- •HMRC argued the Notice was valid under Schedule 36 Finance Act 2008, Condition B, as they suspected under-declared income.
- •HMRC cited Companies House information showing the appellant was a director of other companies.
Legal Principles
Deemed service of documents sent by post.
Section 7, Interpretation Act 1978
Validity of a Notice of Enquiry.
Section 9A, Taxes Management Act 1970
Validity of an Information Notice under Schedule 36.
Schedule 36, Finance Act 2008
Burden of proof for timely service of Enquiry.
Case law and implicit in the legislation
Outcomes
Appeal allowed in part.
The Enquiry was found to be invalid due to late delivery. The Notice was confirmed as valid.
Enquiry Notice deemed invalid.
Appellant proved the Enquiry was not received within the statutory time limit despite HMRC's evidence of posting.
Information Notice confirmed.
HMRC satisfied Condition B of Schedule 36 (suspicion of under-declared income) and the information requested was deemed reasonably required to ascertain the appellant's full tax position.