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.
HICBC - discovery assessments - penalties for failure to notify - carelessness - reasonable excuse
For the Respondents: �� Sophie Taj, litigator of HM Revenue and Customs' Solicitor's Office
             With the consent of the parties, the form of the hearing was V (video) using the Tribunal video hearing system.� A face to face hearing was not held because a remote hearing was appropriate.� The documents to which we were referred are a documents bundle of 152 pages and HMRC's generic authorities bundle of 831 pages.
              Prior notice of the hearing had been published on the gov.uk website, with information about how representatives of the media or members of the public could apply to join the hearing remotely in order to observe the proceedings.� As such, the hearing was held in public.
             This appeal concerned discovery assessments made under Section 29 Taxes Management Act 1970 ("TMA 1970") amounting to �3,258.00, for the tax years 2015/16 to 2019/20 for liability to income tax in the form of the higher income child benefit charge ("HICBC") and penalties in the amount of �517.50 �for failure to notify liability HICBC under Schedule 41 to Finance Act 2008 in respect of tax years 2015/16 through to 2019/20. This is an appeal against
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.