Martin v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 1021 (TC) (10 November 2014)

Martin v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 1021 (TC) (10 November 2014)

Mrs Martin negligently delivered her 2007-08 self-assessment tax return by omitting significant ebay sales and dividend income, failing to keep proper records, and not reviewing her accounts. Her conduct fell below the objective standard of a reasonable taxpayer. The penalty of 40% was upheld as appropriate given the gravity, lack of disclosure, and insufficient cooperation.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 1021
Parties
Appellant: Catherine Grainne Martin; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 November 2014
Procedural Posture
Tax Penalty Appeal / Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; penalty upheld
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Negligence, Carelessness, Record Keeping Requirements, Penalty Assessment
Tax Law Income Tax Corporation Tax Negligence Carelessness Record Keeping Requirements Penalty Assessment

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Catherine Grainne Martin

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Penalty Appeal / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mrs Martin acted negligently in delivering her 2007-08 tax return
  2. 2 Whether the penalty charged by HMRC was appropriate
  3. 3 Whether omission of dividend income and ebay/PayPal sales was negligent

Ratio Decidendi

Mrs Martin negligently delivered her 2007-08 self-assessment tax return by omitting significant ebay sales and dividend income, failing to keep proper records, and not reviewing her accounts. Her conduct fell below the objective standard of a reasonable taxpayer. The penalty of 40% was upheld as appropriate given the gravity, lack of disclosure, and insufficient cooperation.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; penalty upheld

Orders

  • Penalty of £1,643 under TMA s 95(1)(a) confirmed
  • No reduction in penalty percentage