The following was contained in HMRC's latest agent update:
Welsh rates of Income Tax (WRIT) In November 2018 HMRC wrote to over two million customers, with their main residence in Wales, telling them about WRIT. All people living in Wales subject to Income Tax, including individuals who earn below the Income Tax threshold, should have received a letter.
It is tangible proof that HMRC do not treat taxpayers even-handedly because as has been well documented on this thread, no such publicity drive was offered to non-resident taxpayers. This resulted in thousands being issued with significant penalties for a filing obligation they didn't know about.
As can be seen from the tribunal summary below (thanks to NRM), some judges have appreciated how poorly this new filing regime was rolled out and cancelled the late filing penalties accepting ignorance as a reasonable excuse. Sadly, near identical cases have been on the end of an opposite result which just proves that the taxpayers charter pledge stating taxpayers will be dealt with even-handedly is absolute poppycock. It is a shame it is not possible to remove the person responsible for ensuring the charter pledges are met (currently failing miserably) with just 48 letters.
In Ann Rowan-Smith v HMRC  TC6623 a non resident successfully appealed late filing penalties. She failed to report the disposal of her UK property within the 30 day deadline as she assumed that gains would be reported under Self Assessment.
The taxpayer lived in Canada and she sold he UK residential property
Unaware of the new 30 day reporting obligation for Non-Resident Capital Gains Tax (NRCGT) she filed her NRCGT return after she realised that the gain could not be reported via a self assessment return.
HMRC assessed her with £700 of Late Filing penalties.
She appealed against the assessment claiming that she had a Reasonable Excuse for her failure: she had made a genuine mistake because the new filing requirement was not well publicised. Further her conveyancing lawyer had not advised her of the filing deadline and she was entitled to expect that a professional conveyancing solicitor would advise her on her legal obligations in relation to the disposal.
Judge Beare found:
There was no reason why the Appellant should have sought the advice of a tax expert in relation to the disposal, she had not made a chargeable gain and so she thought she would be able to deal with the disposal perfectly adequately in her self-assessment return without recourse to expert advice
HMRC did not accord as much publicity to this new filing requirement as, in retrospect, they might now be wishing. The fact that the Appellant’s solicitor, who, although not a tax expert, was familiar with conveyancing, appears to have been unaware of the new filing obligation tends to support this conclusion.
Given the relative obscurity of the requirement in question, more publicity could have been given to its introduction and that it is this which has prompted the volume of appeals which have now occurred
It was reasonable to believe that that tax would be collected in the same way as capital gains tax in general.
The appeal was allowed on the basis that the taxpayer had acted reasonably and made a genuine mistake.