Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
PENALTY � careless inaccuracy � FA 2007, Sch 24 � HMRC deciding not to suspend penalty � Sch 24, para 14 - whether HMRC�s decision �flawed� � judicial review principles � Sch 24, para 17
Sitting in public at The Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London WC2 on 20 July 2016
On 7 October 2015, the appellant, Mr Eastman, was issued with a penalty assessment under Schedule 24 of the Finance Act 2007 (�FA 2007�) in the sum of �21,547.04.� That penalty was assessed with respect to an inaccuracy in Mr Eastman�s self assessment return for the tax year 2012-13, amounting to the failure to return a capital gain on the disposal in that year of certain business premises, which HMRC said was due to a failure of Mr Eastman to take reasonable care.
This appeal is not against that penalty assessment as such.� Mr Eastman accepts that he was careless, and that the penalty has been properly assessed.� But he has appealed, under paragraph 15(3) of Schedule 24 FA 2007, against the decision of HMRC not to suspend the penalty.
The power to suspend a penalty such as the one in question in this appeal is given to HMRC by FA 2007, Sch 24, para 14 which provides:
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.