British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[
Home]
[
Databases]
[
World Law]
[
Multidatabase Search]
[
Help]
[
Feedback]
First-tier Tribunal (Tax)
You are here:
BAILII >>
Databases >>
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >>
Riaz v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 231 (TC) (08 April 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2011/TC01096.html
Cite as:
[2011] UKFTT 231 (TC)
[
New search]
[
Printable RTF version]
[
Help]
Mr M Riaz v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 231 (TC) (08 April 2011)
INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX
Penalty
[2011] UKFTT 231 (TC)
TC01096
Appeal number: TC/2010/09346
Late
Partnership return. Reasonable excuse.
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX
MR.
M. RIAZ Appellant
-
and -
THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE
AND CUSTOMS Respondents
TRIBUNAL:
GERAINT JONES Q.C.
The Tribunal determined the
appeal on 30 March 2011 without a hearing under the provisions of Rule 26 of
the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (default
paper cases) having first read the Notice of Appeal dated 07 December 2010 and
HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 19 January 2011.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
2011
DECISION
1. On
14 January 2010 the appellant, the representative partner for a partnership
between himself and Mr Tahir, was sent a notice to file a Partnership Tax Return
for the fiscal year ended 5 April 2009. It was required to be filed by the 21
April 2010.
2. HMRC
contend that an incomplete partnership return was received on 14 June 2010 and
that no valid return was received until 7 September 2010. On 6 July 2010 late
filing penalty notices for £100 each were sent to the two partners in the
partnership.
3. On
29 July 2010 the appellant's agent, IAB & Co, wrote to HMRC contending that
there had been no late filing. Unfortunately the letter is not easy to follow.
In the second paragraph of the letter it is asserted that the partnership tax
return was created and issued by HMRC in January 2010. Surprisingly, in the
very next sentence, the letter goes on to assert that the appellant then
contacted the tax office to notify it that no partnership tax return had been
received for the fiscal year ended 5 April 2009. I think the letter might mean
that the telephone call was made to inform HMRC that no earlier return had been
received and that the return received in January 2010 was the first return
received by the partnership. However, that can be no more than my
interpretation of an otherwise difficult and confusing paragraph.
4. The
same letter then goes on to say, in the third paragraph, that the appellant
received a letter in early February 2010 from HMRC “of the notification of
submitting the partnership return but without receiving the Partnership Tax
Return 2008/2009.” It is difficult to know what is meant by that sentence.
5. In
the same letter it is asserted that a paper version of the Partnership Tax
Return was sent to HMRC either at the end of March or at the beginning of April
2010. The letter asserts that that return could not have been received by HMRC.
Then, in rather strained logic, the fourth paragraph of the letter goes on to
assert that the accountants can “confirm” that the Partnership Tax Return was
submitted because, at the same time, the partners’ individual tax returns were
submitted. The final sentence is to the effect that the accountants can confirm
that they completed the paper version of the Partnership Tax Return at the end
of March or in early April 2010. Nowhere do they vouch to it having been sent
or posted to HMRC at any particular time.
6. Appeals
are heard and determined on the available evidence. I do not consider the
assertions or material set out in the letter of 29 July 2010 to be sufficiently
accurate or cogent to allow me to decide that, as a matter of probability, the
partnership return was sent to HMRC in late March or early April 2010. There is
firm evidence from HMRC that an incomplete return was received on 14 June 2010
but there is no reference, by the accountants, to them sending any return that
could or should have been received around that date. I find as a fact that the
return was not submitted on or before the filing date.
7. In
circumstances where the appellant does not claim that there was a reasonable
excuse for late filing but, instead, contends that there has not been late
filing, upon my finding of fact, set out above, that no return was sent to HMRC
prior to the filing date, this appeal must be dismissed.
8. 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.
Decision.
Appeal dismissed.
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 8 APRIL 2011