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] | ||
United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Francis (t/a Signs Direct Europe) v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT V20354 (24 September 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2007/V20354.html Cite as: [2007] UKVAT V20354 |
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
20354
Security – requirement for – whether the Commissioners acted reasonably and took account of all relevant material – Appeal dismissed – VATA 1994 Sch 11 para 4(2)
LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE
MR T FRANCIS T/A SIGNS DIRECT EUROPE Appellant
- and –
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE & CUSTOMS Respondents
Tribunal: DR KAMEEL KHAN (Chairman)
SHEILA WONG CHONG FRICS
Sitting in public in London on 24 July 2007
The Appellant did not appear
Mr Simon Chambers, Advocate, HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007
DECISION
Introduction
Background
The Appellant's contends
- The security amount would cause hardship which would affect the ability to pay current VAT liabilities on time.
- The Appellant would be unable to pay suppliers when required, compounding cashflow problems.
- Current cashflow problems were caused by a bad debt of £30,000.00 and difficulties collecting £32,000.00.
- Requesting the security will make it impossible to continue trading and therefore unable to pay the true liability by mid-March.
- £4,000.00 is owed to the Appellant in respect of charges made by Lloyds TSB.
- A £25,000.00 loan will become available at the end of February 2007 when it is anticipated the current liability can be paid in full.
- The Appellant has tried to raise capital to pay the current liability but has been unsuccessful.
The Commissioners Contend
- The Appellant has a history of non-compliance.
- 5 VAT returns were outstanding at the time the Notice of Requirement was served.
- The Appellant has been in the default surcharge regime at 15% since 03/03 period.
- The debt to the Commissioners at the time the Notice of Requirement to give further security was served on 30 November 2006 totalled £28,403.85 inclusive of default surcharges.
- The Appellant has previously been required to submit sums of security to the Commissioners.
- In May 2004 a Notice of Requirement to give Security was issued.
- A security deposit was received and offset against debt.
- In November 2004 a further Notice of Requirement to give Security was served and a security deposit was collected and offset against outstanding debt.
- There are three warrants on file two of which have resulted in levies.
- The Appellant has been a Director of two other sign manufacturing companies both of which have a poor record of compliance.
- The total debt to the Commissioners of the associated companies is over £38,000.00.
Conclusion
DR KAMEEL KHAN
CHAIRMAN
RELEASED: 24 September 2007
LON 2007/0342