The following Personal Tax guidance note Produced by Tolley provides comprehensive and up to date tax information covering:
If a penalty has been correctly charged by HMRC, the taxpayer can only appeal if they believe they have a ‘reasonable excuse’ for failing to comply with the legislation.
The term ‘reasonable excuse’ is not defined in the legislation and therefore the meaning is continually being reassessed by the courts ‘in light of all the circumstances of the particular case’.
HMRC considers a reasonable excuse to be ‘something that stops a person from meeting a tax obligation despite them having taken reasonable care to meet that obligation’. In order to assess whether the excuse is reasonable, HMRC assesses ‘the experience and relevant attributes of the taxpayer’ when deciding whether the taxpayer has taken reasonable care to meet the obligation.
Therefore, a reasonable excuse often arises where there is an unexpected or unusual event (or a combination of such events) that is either unforeseeable or beyond the taxpayer’s control.
Often if the taxpayer could reasonably have foreseen the event, whether or not it is within their control, HMRC will expect the person to take steps to meet their obligations.
In terms of proving a reasonable excuse, the European Court of Human Rights judgment in Jussila v Finland is interesting as it turns the burden of proof on its head. Normally, the burden of proof in tax cases rests with the taxpayer. However, the Jussila case makes it clear that penalties are ‘criminal charges’, meaning that, in penalty appeal cases, the burden of proof rests with HMRC. However, as decided in Khawaja, the civil standard of proof applies, not the criminal standard. This means that HMRC must prove ‘on the balance of probabilities’ that a penalty is due. The impact of the Jussila case on the penalties regime is discussed in ‘New Penalties’ by Hui Ling McCarthy in Tax Journal, Issue 977, 22 (20 April 2009).
However, the evidential burden for a reasonable excuse rem
**Free trials are only available to individuals based in the UK. We may terminate this trial at any time or decide not to give a trial, for any reason.
Access this article and thousands of others like it free for 7 days with a trial of TolleyGuidance.
Read full article
Already a subscriber? Login
IntroductionSubsistence is the amount incurred as a consequence of business travel. Typically it relates to accommodation and meal costs incurred. These amounts are allowed because they are associated with the necessary travel. See the Travel expenses guidance note for more information of when
Maintenance payments are payments made by a taxpayer to their former or separated spouse for the maintenance of that former spouse or their children. To obtain any tax relief for maintenance payments, one of the couple must have been born before 5 April 1935 and the payments must be made by virtue
Expenditure of a capital nature is not allowed as a deduction when calculating trading profits. Expenditure of a revenue nature is allowable, provided there is no specific statutory rule prohibiting a deduction and the expenditure also satisfies the wholly and exclusively test. See the Wholly and
This guidance note provides an overview of what conditions need to be met before a business is entitled to treat VAT incurred as input tax. This note should be read in conjunction with the other notes in the ‘Claiming input tax’ subtopic. For a flowchart outlining the procedure for claiming input
To view our latest tax guidance content, sign in to Tolley Guidance or register for a free trial.