Bentley v Revenue And Customs (INCOME TAX - follower notices) [2021] UKFTT 240 (TC) (30 June 2021)

Bentley v Revenue And Customs (INCOME TAX - follower notices) [2021] UKFTT 240 (TC) (30 June 2021)

The appellant did not take corrective action by the specified deadline and his reliance on advisers, confusion, and stress did not amount to it being reasonable in all the circumstances not to comply. The law requires an objectively reasonable belief, and the appellant's actions did not meet this threshold. Penalties were correctly imposed and, following Comtek, no further reduction for post-assessment cooperation was permitted.

Citation
[2021] UKFTT 240
Parties
Appellant: Mr Michael Bentley; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
30 June 2021
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Appeal (follower Notice Penalties) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision After Review Under Rule 41
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Follower Notices, Penalties, Corrective Action, Reasonable Excuse, Judicial Review, Tax Avoidance Schemes
Tax Law Income Tax Follower Notices Penalties Corrective Action Reasonable Excuse Judicial Review Tax Avoidance Schemes

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 2 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Michael Bentley

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Appeal (follower Notice Penalties) / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision After Review Under Rule 41

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether it was reasonable in all the circumstances for the appellant not to have taken the necessary corrective action in response to follower notices under FA 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the penalties imposed for failure to take corrective action should be upheld or reduced.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not take corrective action by the specified deadline and his reliance on advisers, confusion, and stress did not amount to it being reasonable in all the circumstances not to comply. The law requires an objectively reasonable belief, and the appellant's actions did not meet this threshold. Penalties were correctly imposed and, following Comtek, no further reduction for post-assessment cooperation was permitted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Penalties for failure to take corrective action under s208 FA 2014 are upheld in the amounts assessed after reduction for pre-assessment cooperation.
  • No further reduction or cancellation of penalties.