BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £5, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | |
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||
|
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> Codicote Quarry Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 171 (TC) (15 March 2011) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2011/TC01040.html Cite as: [2011] UKFTT 171 (TC) |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
[2011] UKFTT 171 (TC)
TC01040
Appeal number TC/2010/09468
VAT – late payment – default surcharge – reasonable excuse – proportionality – appeal dismissed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX
CODICOTE QUARRY LIMITED Appellant
- and -
TRIBUNAL: RICHARD J MANUELL
Mrs LESLEY STALKER
Sitting in public at Holborn Bars, 138-142 High Holborn, London EC1N 2NQ on 9 March 2011
Mr Colin Edmonds, company director, for the Appellant
Mrs Lynne Ratnett, Presenting Officer, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2011
DECISION
6. Mrs Ratnett for the Respondents referred to the bundle of documents prepared by the Respondents for the appeal. She submitted that no reasonable excuse had been disclosed by the facts presented. These were the fourth, fifth and sixth defaults. The Appellant was already in the 5% penalty regime from its previous defaults and was aware of the consequences of non compliance, i.e. that the penalty rates would escalate. The penalties were geared to the tax payable and were proportionate. The only reason for non payment which had been advanced was shortage of funds, but that was barred as a reasonable because of Section 71(1)(a) VATA 1994:
71 Construction of sections 59 to 70.
(1)For the purpose of any provision of sections 59 to 70 which refers to a reasonable excuse for any conduct—
(a)an insufficiency of funds to pay any VAT due is not a reasonable excuse
No unforeseeable event had been raised as a reason for late payment and the appeal should be dismissed.
7. Mr Edmonds reiterated that all VAT due had been paid. There had been no dishonesty. The Appellant considered that the penalties were disproportionate.
8. The Tribunal found that the undisputed facts failed to disclose any reasonable excuse in law. Mrs Ratnett’s submissions were sound and were adopted. The Appellant was on clear notice of its position and of the consequences of further defaults, which were fully explained in the information given by the Respondents when the earlier surcharge notices were served. There had been no evidence produced to show that there had in fact been cash flow difficulties, let alone that any such difficulty had been an unforeseeable event which had been the immediate cause of the late payment of VAT for any of the three quarters for which the surcharge notices under appeal had been issued. The Appellant’s last annual accounts for the year ended 28 February 2010, prepared by its accountants, indicated that the company had been profitable for that and the preceding accounting year, and held substantial assets. The surcharge penalties in the Tribunal’s view were not disproportionate, because, inter alia, of the strong public interest in the efficient and effective operation of the VAT collection system. The vast majority of VAT registered entities comply with the relevant legislation.
9. This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.
