This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse the site you are agreeing to our use of cookies. To find out more about cookies on this website and how to delete cookies, see our Cookie Policy.

Tools which collect anonymous data to enable us to see how visitors use our site and how it performs. We use this to improve our products, services and user experience.


Tools that enable essential services and functionality, including identity verification, service continuity and site security.

Where Taxpayers and Advisers Meet
Beware: Penalties Could Go UP, Not Down!
19/10/2020, by Mark McLaughlin CTA (Fellow) ATT TEP, Tax Articles - Tax Investigations & Enquiries
Rating: 1/5 from 1 people

Mark McLaughlin warns that appeals against some penalties from HMRC could have unexpected and unwelcome outcomes.


Penalties can be imposed by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) for a variety of offences, such as failing to comply with self-assessment compliance obligations (e.g. failure to file a tax return by the due date). Some penalties are fixed in amount; others are tax-related.

Can HMRC Decide the Amount?

In some instances, HMRC may decide on the level of penalty to be imposed, within statutory limits. For example, if the taxpayer is more than 12 months late in filing a tax return with a view to deliberately withholding information to prevent HMRC accurately assessing their liability, a tax-related penalty can be imposed of 70% (or higher, in cases involving offshore matters or transfers) of any tax liability which would have been shown in the return (FA 2009 Sch 55 para 6), subject to a possible reduction depending on the nature and extent of any disclosure by the taxpayer (para 14).

There is generally a right of appeal against penalties, in respect of HMRC’s decision to impose a penalty; and the amount of the penalty (e.g. where penalties are tax-related, or where HMRC may set the level of a daily penalty).

Taxpayers might be tempted to appeal against penalties in the hope that the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) will cancel or at least reduce them. However, in some cases the appellant may be shocked to end up paying higher penalties than if they had not appealed.

Higher or Lower?

For example, in Wheeler v Revenue and Customs [2018] UKFTT 572 (TC), HMRC issued the taxpayer with an information notice. The taxpayer failed to comply, and HMRC issued an initial penalty of £300. HMRC subsequently imposed daily penalties of £1,600 (i.e. 160 days at £10 per day) due to the taxpayer’s continued failure to comply. The taxpayer appealed against the daily penalties, on the grounds (among others) that if HMRC thought he owed any income tax they should assess him, and that HMRC was invading his private life.

The First-tier Tribunal (FTT) noted that the taxpayer’s grounds of appeal sought to ‘go behind’ the information notice. However, on an appeal against a penalty for failure to comply with a notice under FA 2008 Sch 36 para 1, the tribunal was not entitled to go behind the notice to see if it was imposed in accordance with the law. Such arguments could only be dealt with in judicial review proceedings. In addition, the taxpayer’s human rights argument (i.e. invasion of private life) was dismissed.

The FTT noted that the daily penalty was charged at £10 per day, whereas the maximum was £60 per day. The FTT considered that the appellant’s behaviour towards HMRC, given the information that HMRC possessed about his personal and business affairs, was to simply “cock a snook” at HMRC and, to an extent, the tribunal. The FTT therefore decided to increase the penalty to £30 per day (i.e. £4,800 in total).

Handle with Care

Where a penalty potentially applies, always check the relevant legislation carefully, in terms of potential penalty exposure, mitigation possibilities and appeal rights

The above article was first published in Business Tax Insider (April 2019) (

About The Author

Mark McLaughlin is a Fellow of the Chartered Institute of Taxation, a Fellow of the Association of Taxation Technicians, and a member of the Society of Trust and Estate Practitioners. From January 1998 until December 2018, Mark was a consultant in his own tax practice, Mark McLaughlin Associates, which provided tax consultancy and support services to professional firms throughout the UK.

He is a member of the Chartered Institute of Taxation’s Capital Gains Tax & Investment Income and Succession Taxes Sub-Committees.

Mark is editor and a co-author of HMRC Investigations Handbook (Bloomsbury Professional).

Mark is Chief Contributor to McLaughlin’s Tax Case Review, a monthly journal published by Tax Insider.

Mark is the Editor of the Core Tax Annuals (Bloomsbury Professional), and is a co-author of the ‘Inheritance Tax’ Annuals (Bloomsbury Professional).

Mark is Editor and a co-author of ‘Tax Planning’ (Bloomsbury Professional).

He is a co-author of ‘Ray & McLaughlin’s Practical IHT Planning’ (Bloomsbury Professional)

Mark is a Consultant Editor with Bloomsbury Professional, and co-author of ‘Incorporating and Disincorporating a Business’.

Mark has also written numerous articles for professional publications, including ‘Taxation’, ‘Tax Adviser’, ‘Tolley’s Practical Tax Newsletter’ and ‘Tax Journal’.

Mark is a Director of Tax Insider, and Editor of Tax Insider, Property Tax Insider and Business Tax Insider, which are monthly publications aimed at providing tax tips and tax saving ideas for taxpayers and professional advisers. He is also Editor of Tax Insider Professional, a monthly publication for professional practitioners.

Mark is also a tax lecturer, and has featured in online tax lectures for Tolley Seminars Online.

Mark co-founded TaxationWeb ( in 2002.

Back to Tax Articles

Please register or log in to add comments.

There are not comments added