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.
This guidance note considers the concept of reasonable excuse. For commentary on how to build a case for reasonable excuse, see the Winning reasonable excuse cases guidance note.
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
**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
Legislative definition of plant and machineryThe general rule allowing capital allowances on plant and machinery is given at CAA 2001, s 11. There is no statutory definition of the term ‘plant and machinery’ but there is confirmation in the legislation on what constitutes a building or a structure
Companies Act 2006 allows a company to repurchase its own issued share capital, provided certain conditions are met. This type of transaction is sometimes referred to as a ‘share buyback’ or a ‘purchase of own shares’.The repurchased shares can either be immediately cancelled, which is typically the
Why defer a gain?An individual’s net taxable income and chargeable gains for the tax year influence the rate of tax payable on their capital gains. See the Introduction to capital gains tax guidance note.Depending on the nature of the asset disposed of, this can result in the individual paying
What is transfer pricing?Transfer pricing is the prices at which an enterprise transfers either physical goods, intangible property or services, including financing arrangements, to associated enterprises. Generally, enterprises are associated if there is direct or indirect control by one of the