UK: With Great Power, Comes Great Responsibility

Last Updated: 26 February 2018
Article by Gary Richards

Speed read

The evidence in McGreevy, Hesketh and Welland reveals judicial diversity on what amounts to reasonable excuse; whether ignorance of the law can be a valid excuse for non-compliance; and when HMRC's failings exculpate a taxpayer (in the context of non-resident capital gains tax (NRCGT)). In Cannon, HMRC unsuccessfully argued that expertise raises the reasonableness bar. The Tax Law Review Committee (TLRC) questioned both whether HMRC's new powers were subject to any effective sanction (quis custodiet ipsos custodes?); and whether more certainty or clarity needs to be brought to what amounts to reasonable excuse. Time for a change?

The cases McGreevy [2017] UKFTT 690, Hesketh [2017] UKFTT 871, Welland [2017] UKFTT 870 and Cannon [2017] UKFTT 859, together with the recent IFS (Tax Law Review Committee (TLRC)) report on HMRC entitled The implications of recent additions to HMRC power and the shifting balance in the relationship with the taxpayers, may seem unlikely bedfellows. However, together I believe they should prompt taxpayers, HMRC and, most importantly, Parliament to consider what is expected of taxpayers – and of HMRC – in the digital age.

As readers know, initially when HMRC consulted on the introduction of the non-resident capital gains tax (NRCGT) it was contemplating a withholding tax. However, representations pointed out that any flat rate withholding was likely to be wrong, whether overestimating or underestimating the gain, or not giving credit for reliefs, e.g. the principal private residence (PPR) relief. The idea was therefore dropped but, crucially, the requirement to file returns quickly – necessary for withholding tax if tax was not to be lost – was not removed from what had become the final legislation. Rachel McGreevy, an Australian citizen accustomed to filing self-assessment returns by the usual filing date in January, failed to file an NRCGT return within 30 days of disposal. HMRC duly assessed a penalty, whereupon she claimed she had a reasonable excuse because she was ignorant of the accelerated deadline.

HMRC asserted that it expected a non-resident to follow the twists and turns of HMRC consultations and the Autumn Statement, and repeatedly access HMRC's website to find out the 30 day deadline. The tribunal judge's views on this were rather withering, as 'claptrap', 'nerdview' and demonstrating a 'serious deficiency in common sense, proportion and ability to consider the position of what HMRC calls its "customers"' are not frequent descriptions of HMRC's arguments, at least in published decisions. He concluded the taxpayer did have a reasonable excuse.

He also decided, having concluded there was either dubious policy or mere oversight on HMRC's part (paras 198 to 214), that, if needed, there were special circumstances enabling the tribunal to substitute a different penalty. Importantly, the judge also concluded that ignorance of the law being no defence was a maxim authoritatively reserved to the criminal courts and had only been extended to penalties in relation to tax compliance where a taxpayer claimed ignorance of a commonplace tax situation or point of tax law.

FTT decisions are not precedential so it is perhaps no surprise that a different tribunal judge found in Hesketh and Welland that other taxpayers who filed NRCGT returns late did not have a reasonable excuse. The tribunal concluded that ignorance of the law being no defence was a maxim that applied to civil matters too, quoting several other FTT decisions, albeit without revealing whether they related to commonplace tax matters (and a Court of Appeal decision).

In Hesketh, the tribunal uses an interesting expression in describing s 55, stating that it is 'imposing civil penalties' (para 61). Technically, a monetary amount could be regarded as a penalty and the breach as having no criminal consequences (in contrast to a fine or incarceration). However, 'civil penalties' to VAT lawyers have connotations of matters of seriousness: not perhaps the late filing of a return where in some cases no tax was due. And the fact that so many cases continue to come before the tribunal on reasonable excuse clearly suggests there is a gap in the understanding of taxpayers as to what the law currently requires of them and what they believe is required of them.

The policy reason for not permitting 'basic' ignorance in civil matters is articulated clearly in both McGreevy and Hesketh – persons who suspected that they had an obligation might not take the trouble to find it out. However, if you don't know or have reasonable grounds to suspect that you might be affected – an Australian resident affected by an ill-publicised change in UK tax law would seem to be a paradigm example – should 'Parliament ... expect [such] people to acquaint themselves with the law'? (Welland, para 88)

Then, revealingly, the tribunal judge in Hesketh acknowledged what is well known to practitioners (and is, in small part, a reason for the GAAR): Parliament may enact complex legislation that taxpayers without advice may not reasonably understand (paras 86-88 and 95). As a matter of policy, where a UK resident is aware in general terms (for example, because of widespread media discussion or publicity, perhaps even by HMRC, such as the first wider version of making tax digital) it would be reasonable to search UK websites or seek advice. Is it therefore reasonable for an overseas taxpayer used to a particular filing pattern to be expected to carry out research? (I need make no comment on the likelihood of Mr and Mrs Hesketh having reached HMRC's helpline after the Public Accounts Committee's recent report on telephone response times.) Or is it reasonable for the Heskeths to have to incur costs on professional advice, as was suggested at para 94 of the judgment?

Equally revealing, at para 138 the tribunal judge stated 'not even the administrative court of the High Court can take the Parliament to task for rushing through legislation without proper consideration'. But where, as a freedom of information request showed, over a third of NRCGT returns were filed late, that might cause a judge to pause to consider how reasonable it is for a taxpayer to be ignorant of the law in these circumstances. Clearly, in McGreevy another member of the tax judiciary thought it was not unreasonable; and, without arguing for a double reasonableness test for penalties or encouraging tribunal judges to ignore their judicial oath and decide cases not in accordance with the law, the judiciary is a bulwark between the citizen and the executive. While there is ample authority that HMRC cannot pick or choose which laws to enforce, including the laws imposing penalties, it does have a managerial discretion. It is not clear what purpose was served by asking the tribunal to impose flat rate penalties where citizens of another country were ignorant of the changes made in the UK Parliament.

As the tribunal judge said in Hesketh, it would be advantageous if the Upper Tribunal could make a binding ruling on whether ignorance of the law can be a reasonable excuse so that inconsistent First-tier decisions are avoided (para 109). Unfortunately, given that the amounts at stake in Hesketh and Welland are low and, as the judge is required to warn, the taxpayer would be at risk on costs, two cases which contain useful factors to enable the Upper Tier to rule authoritatively are unlikely to be before it.

The taxpayer in Hesketh had another argument (that the tribunal could not entertain); namely, where HMRC is aware of a body of taxpayers (e.g. non-residents already within the self- assessment system), particularly those who, even if they knew about the change at all, might reasonably expect to provide details of disposal at the time they filed their normal tax return, should HMRC not inform them? The tribunals in McGreevy and Hesketh could agree that HMRC as tax collector should publicise a change in law and the new reporting requirement; however, they disagreed as to whether it was enough, to render the taxpayer's ignorance unreasonable, if HMRC did no more than that.

In Hesketh, the tribunal points out reasonably enough that 'it must be impossible for HMRC to identify and notify every possibly affected taxpayer of every possible relevant change in the law'; and finds it equally predictable that few taxpayers would pay attention to all those communications. However, the tribunal dismissed Mr Welland's claim that, where HMRC knows of a group of taxpayers likely to be affected, that is not an unreasonable burden. This dismissal is debatable, as it relies on the usual floodgates argument: 'If HMRC were obliged to warn non-resident landlords ... it would follow that HMRC would have an obligation to individually warn all potential taxpayers.' The taxpayer was not arguing this: his contention was a balancing act that, where HMRC can readily identify a class of taxpayers, that it should do so; and, as was pointed out in McGreevy (para 217), HMRC does already focus on groups of taxpayers when it suits it to do so. Perhaps if HMRC shared the tribunal's concern that the obligation went wider, it could explain why such a course of action was justified in a particular case. For good measure, Mr Hesketh was not, in contrast to para 108, saying it was unlawful that HMRC had failed to write to him; merely, that this provided a reasonable excuse.

This may seem to be an over-extended case review but the case reveals much about the way in which Parliament makes laws and the diffi cult balancing act that members of the tax judiciary have in such circumstances. This is particularly relevant, as many advisers believe HMRC's approach to penalties is driven by the fact that it has had to be seen to reduce its costs following the merger of Inland Revenue and Customs & Exercise; and as there is therefore less chance of returns being examined, so sanctions need to be imposed in the form of penalties. (The sorry state which HMRC has reached is evident from evidence given in the PAC report, where it almost offers to lobby ministers on behalf of HMRC: see, for example, the exchange of oral evidence between members of the PAC and Jon Thompson and HMRC colleagues, in particular at questions 200–202 on page 43 of the report.)

Cannon raises a simpler issue: is the duty of care of a taxpayer who is professionally knowledgeable about tax (even if it is not his specialist area) higher than that of a less fiscally knowledgeable person? The proposition is that if a professional relied upon the advice of an adviser which turned out to be wrong, that reliance could be careless; whereas for another less qualified taxpayer who had relied upon such advice, the same error was not negligent, even though in both cases they took professional advice. The tribunal concluded that this is not the case. One slightly wonders why this argument was run, dismissing the thought that it was a response to Mr Cannon's refusal to accede to an invitation to stop advising on SDLT schemes (paras 8-12).

The TLRC's view on what it calls the 'new powers' (including follower notices, APNs and GAAR penalties) is that taxpayers have relatively limited legal protection and have to rely on assurances by HMRC that the powers will only be targeted on the 'the recalcitrant few'. Furthermore, the very diversity of judicial view evidenced by McGreevy and Hesketh can play against taxpayers in follower notices situations. While currently HMRC may anticipate issuing follower notices only where there are almost identical situations, it is not clear that such an approach will continue.

As the TLRC report points out, HMRC has been known at times to decide it will not follow a court decision (particularly one in the FTT) because it disagrees with the outcome; and yet there is no ability for a taxpayer to question HMRC's conclusion that a decision is 'relevant' to his particular dispute. Instead, the taxpayer has to take his chances before the tribunal as to whether the principles laid down or a reason given in the ruling could apply to his particular arrangements, and so deny the advantage that he claimed. Indeed, the case (of another taxpayer) may be regarded as 'relevant' for the follower notices legislation, even if the tribunal or a higher court decision subsequently concludes there are suffi cient distinguishing features.

Even more relevantly, features which drove different members of the judiciary to come to different conclusions on the relevant taxpayer's reasonableness or otherwise in being ignorant of the NRCGT legislation could have much graver consequences when it comes to follower notice penalties. McGreevy and Hesketh clearly demonstrate the correctness of the TLRC's conclusion that: 'The line between what is and what is not a reasonable excuse is imprecise, consequently constantly shifting and a source of large volume of litigation. There is a huge range of varying penalty provisions for safeguards, which led to HMRC issuing a discussion document considering the general approach to penalties in February 2015' (TRLC report, page 17).

Quite ignoring the issues on the appropriate level of funding to be given to public services and whether inappropriate decisions are being driven by how aggregate PSBR will appear, rather than whether the best outcome is being served for taxpayers, it cannot be effi cient for HMRC, taxpayers or their advisers for the compliance burden to be excessive. This only leads to breaches where a taxpayer does not feel it is appropriate for penalties to be due, with consequent appeals and/or requests for reviews by HMRC staff and the tribunal judiciary applying uncertain law in widely different circumstances to try and do justice despite the legislation with which they are dealing.

Has the time come for a radically different approach to compliance failings with sanctions restricted to the serial offender, and the exercise of more – not less – judgment on the part of HMRC?

Originally published by Tax Journal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Related Topics
Related Articles
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Mondaq Free Registration
Gain access to Mondaq global archive of over 375,000 articles covering 200 countries with a personalised News Alert and automatic login on this device.
Mondaq News Alert (some suggested topics and region)
Select Topics
Registration (please scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of

To Use you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.


The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.


Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions