188ÌåÓý

The terms neglect, negligence and negligent conduct are interchangeable.

Before repeal by FA89, there was a definition of neglect in TMA70/S118 (1).

‘Neglect means negligence or a failure to give any notice, make any return or to produce or furnish any document or other information required by or under the Taxes Acts.�

Baron Alderson in Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, 1856, 11 Ex 781, p784, which was concerned with the law of tort says

Negligence is the omission to do something which a reasonable man, guided upon those considerations which ordinarily regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The defendants might be liable for negligence, if, unintentionally, they omitted to do that which a reasonable person would have done, or did that which a person taking reasonable precautions would not have done.

We can assume that a reasonable person would, amongst other things

• comply with the requirements of the law by, for example, notifying their chargeability
• make, promptly, a complete and correct return of their income and gains when required to do so under statutory authority
• keep such records as are necessary to enable them to make accurate returns or prepare accurate accounts
• read carefully the notes supplied with the return form, so far as they affect their own circumstances
• seek professional help with matters, such as the preparation of accounts, which they are unable to cope with satisfactorily alone.

The longstanding concept in general law of “negligence� can be linked to the concept of “failure to take reasonable care� for penalties under FA07/Sch24. Although it is not binding, the First Tier Tribunal (FTT) case, David Collis v HMRC Commissioners [2011] UKFTT 588(TC), provides a clear link between these two concepts. In this case “reasonable care� was defined as being “that of a prudent and reasonable taxpayer in the position of the taxpayer in question�. For further guidance, see CH53400.