CH81140 - Penalties for Inaccuracies: Types of inaccuracy: Careless Inaccuracy
You must check the date from which these rules apply for
the tax or duty you aredealing with. SeeCH81011for full details.
The law defines ‘careless’ as a failure to take
reasonable care.
Failure to take reasonable care can be likened to the
longstanding concept in general law of “negligence”.
In the 1856 case of Blyth v Birmingham Waterworks Co, Baron
Alderman said
Negligence is the omission to do something
which a reasonable man, guided upon thoseconsiderations which ordinarily regulate the
conduct of human affairs, would do, or doingsomething which a prudent and reasonable man
would not do. The defendants might be liablefor negligence, if, unintentionally, they
omitted to do that which a prudent and reasonableperson would have done, or did that which a
person taking reasonable care would not havedone.
There is no question of whether or not the person intended
to make the inaccuracy. If he did, that would be deliberate, see
CH81150 and
CH81160. It is simply a question of
examining what the person did or failed to do and asking whether a
prudent and reasonable person would have done that or failed to do
that in those circumstances.
Repeated inaccuracies may form part of a pattern of
behaviour which suggests a lack of care by a person in developing
adequate systems for the recording of transactions or preparing tax
returns. It is, however, important to keep a sense of proportion.
Repetition of the same inaccuracy would not always, of itself,
indicate a failure to take reasonable care.
People do make mistakes. We do not expect perfection. We are
simply seeking to establish whether the person has taken the care
and attention that could be expected from a reasonable person
taking reasonable care in similar circumstances.
For practical examples of failure to take reasonable care,
see
CH81145.
