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) >>
Consult Solutions v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 429 (TC) (30 June 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2011/TC01282.html
Cite as:
[2011] UKFTT 429 (TC)
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Consult Solutions v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 429 (TC) (30 June 2011)
INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX
Penalty
[2011] UKFTT 429 (TC)
TC01282
Appeal number: TC/2011/1543
INCOME TAX
– PENALTY FOR LATE FILING OF END OF YEAR PAYE RETURN – Whether Appellant had
reasonable excuse for default – Yes – Appeal Allowed.
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX
CONSULT
SOLUTIONS Appellant
-
and -
THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE
AND CUSTOMS Respondents
TRIBUNAL:
Michael Tildesley OBE (TRIBUNAL JUDGE)
The Tribunal determined the
appeal on 21 June 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 22 February 2011, and
HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 21 March 2011. The Appellant did not reply
to the Statement of Case
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
2011
DECISION
1. The
Appellant appeals against the imposition of penalties in the total sum of ₤500
for its failure to submit an employer’s annual return (P35) for the tax year
ending 5 April 2010, which was required to be filed on line by 19 May 2010.
2. The
Appellant filed its return on-line on 12 October 2010. HMRC has imposed a
penalty of ₤400 for four months from 20 May 2010 to 19 September 2010,
and a further penalty of ₤100 for the period 20 September 2010 to 19
October 2010. Under sections 98A(2) and (3) of the Taxes Management Act 1970,
the Appellant was liable to a fixed penalty of ₤100 for each month or
part month that it was in default with its return. Thus the total amount of
penalties imposed was in accordance with the statutory requirements.
3. HMRC
discharged the penalty of ₤100 for the period 20 September 2010 to 19
October 2010 in error. HMRC has indicated that it would not be seeking to
re-instate that penalty
4. The
Appellant stated that it had only been trading for eight months, and this was
the first time that it had been required to file an end of year return on line.
The Appellant had logged onto its account on 17 May 2010 and believed that it
had submitted the return online. The Appellant did not discover that the return
had not been received by HMRC until the issue of the penalty on 27 September
2010. The Appellant was unaware of the arrangement whereby HMRC acknowledged
receipt of the return by sending an automatic message to the Appellant’s e mail
account. The Appellant was advised by HMRC that its on line return failed
because of a systems or internet error. The Appellant pointed out that it had
paid over the necessary tax one week prior to the filing date. The Appellant
contended that it was being punished unfairly for an error which was not its
fault.
5. HMRC
contended that it offered considerable help to employers in respect of the filing
of on-line returns which included the employer’s bulletin, the annual
employer’s pack and the website. According to HMRC the Appellant should have
known that the submission of its return on the 17 May 2010 was unsuccessful
because it did not receive an electronic message confirming receipt. Finally
HMRC pointed out that penalty notices were not reminders, and now sent out at
specific times rather than after the tax payer had submitted a late return.
6. The
Tribunal has limited jurisdiction in penalty Appeals which reflects the purpose
of the legislation of ensuring that employers file their returns on time. The
Tribunal has no power to mitigate the penalty. The Tribunal can either confirm
the penalty or quash it if satisfied that the Appellant has a reasonable excuse
for his failure. The Appellant has the obligation of satisfying the Tribunal on
a balance of probabilities that it has a reasonable excuse for not filing the
return on time.
7. In
considering a reasonable excuse the Tribunal examines the actions of the
Appellant from the perspective of a prudent employer exercising reasonable
foresight and due diligence and having proper regard for its responsibilities
under the Tax Acts.
8. The
Tribunal is satisfied that the Appellant did make an on-line return on `17 May
2010 but for some reason unbeknown to the Appellant the return was rejected and
not received by HMRC. The Appellant was unaware of the arrangement whereby HMRC
acknowledged receipt of the return by sending an electronic message to the
Appellant’s e-mail account. The Appellant’s lack of knowledge of the receipt
arrangements was tempered by the facts that this was the first time that the
Appellant had been required to submit end of year returns, and the first year
of operation of the mandatory scheme for on-line filing.
Although HMRC stated that its website provided detailed guidance the filing of
on-line returns, its statement of case, however, was not explicit about whether
the guidance explained about the receipting arrangements for on-line returns.
The Appellant had met its obligations to collect and return the requisite tax,
and submitted a new return in good time after discovering that the return on 17
May 2010 had not been received by HMRC.
9. The
Tribunal considers that in the round the Appellant’s actions were those of
prudent employer exercising reasonable foresight and due diligence and having
proper regard for its responsibilities under the Tax Acts. The explanation
given by HMRC for the unsuccessful filing on the 17 May 2010 was that it was
due to a systems or internet error which was beyond the Appellant’s control.
The Appellant’s lack of knowledge of the receipting arrangements was
understandable given that this was the first time that the Appellant had used
the on-line facility for making returns. The Tribunal, having regard to all the
circumstances, is satisfied that the Appellant has established a reasonable
excuse for its failure to submit in time an employer’s annual return (P35) for
the tax year ending 5 April 2010.
10. The Tribunal
allows the Appeal and discharges the penalty in the sum of ₤400. The
Tribunal notes that HMRC was not pursuing the additional penalty of ₤100
imposed for the period 20 September 2010 to 19 October 2010.
11. 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.
MICHAEL TILDESLEY
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 30 JUNE 2011