Deadman Confidential Partnership v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 76 (TC) (27 April 2009)

Deadman Confidential Partnership v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 76 (TC) (27 April 2009)

The penalty under s98(1)(b)(i) TMA 1970 is imposed because Mr Deadman failed to comply with a valid s20 notice, despite having the required documents in his possession and no substantive excuse for non-compliance. The s19A notices were reasonable and necessary for HMRC's enquiries, and closure notices should not be issued until the requested documents are provided. The typographical error in the covering letter to the s20 notice does not affect its validity.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 76 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Deadman Confidential Partnership; Appellant/defendant: Anthony Leonard Deadman; Appellant: Sharon Deadman; Respondent/applicant: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal and Penalty Determination / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in respect of penalty and s19A notices; applications for closure notices dismissed; appeals against further assessments adjourned.
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Penalties, Tax Enquiries, Disclosure Requirements
Tax Law Income Tax Corporation Tax Penalties Tax Enquiries Disclosure Requirements

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 3 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deadman Confidential Partnership

Appellant

Anthony Leonard Deadman

Appellant/defendant

Sharon Deadman

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondent/applicant

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal and Penalty Determination / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether penalty under s98(1)(b)(i) TMA 1970 for failure to comply with s20 notice is justified
  2. 2 Whether HMRC's s19A TMA 1970 notices were reasonable and valid
  3. 3 Whether closure notices under s28A(4) and s28B(5) TMA 1970 should be issued

Ratio Decidendi

The penalty under s98(1)(b)(i) TMA 1970 is imposed because Mr Deadman failed to comply with a valid s20 notice, despite having the required documents in his possession and no substantive excuse for non-compliance. The s19A notices were reasonable and necessary for HMRC's enquiries, and closure notices should not be issued until the requested documents are provided. The typographical error in the covering letter to the s20 notice does not affect its validity.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in respect of penalty and s19A notices; applications for closure notices dismissed; appeals against further assessments adjourned.

Orders

  • Penalty of £300 imposed on Mr Deadman for failure to comply with s20 notice.
  • Appeals against s19A notices dismissed except for items already complied with.