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) >>
Chris Williams Services v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 671 (TC) (20 October 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2011/TC01513.html
Cite as:
[2011] UKFTT 671 (TC)
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Chris Williams Services v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 671 (TC) (20 October 2011)
INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX
Penalty
[2011] UKFTT 671 (TC)
TC01513
Appeal number: TC/2011/04214
P35
return—Penalty for late return (Taxes Management Act 1970 s.98A)—Reasonable
excuse—Appeal dismissed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX
CHRIS
WILLIAMS SERVICES Appellant
-
and -
THE COMMISSIONERS
FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE
AND CUSTOMS Respondents
TRIBUNAL:
Dr Christopher Staker (Tribunal Judge)
The Tribunal determined the
appeal on 3 October 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, HMRC’s Statement of Case dated
27 July 2011, and other papers in the case.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
2011
DECISION
Introduction
1. The
Appellant appeals against penalties totalling £1,200 imposed in respect of the
late filing of its P35 employer’s annual return (P35) for the tax year 2008/09.
The relevant legislation
2. Regulation
73(1) of the Income Tax (Pay As You Earn) Regulations 2003 imposes on an
employer the obligation to deliver to HMRC a P35 return before the
20th day of May following the end of a tax year. Paragraph (10) of that
regulation provides that s.98A of the Taxes Management Act 1970 (the “TMA”) applies to paragraph (1) of that regulation.
3. Section
98A of the TMA relevantly provides as follows:
(2) Where
this section applies in relation to a provision of regulations, any person who
fails to make a return in accordance with the provision shall be liable—
(a) to
a penalty or penalties of the relevant monthly amount for each month (or part
of a month) during which the failure continues, but excluding any month after
the twelfth or for which a penalty under this paragraph has already been
imposed, ...
(3) For
the purposes of subsection (2)(a) above, the
relevant monthly amount in the case of a failure to make a return—
(a) where
the number of persons in respect of whom particulars should be included in the
return is fifty or less, is £100, ...
4. Section
100(1) of the TMA authorises HMRC to make a determination imposing a penalty
under s.98A of the TMA in such amount as it considers correct or appropriate.
Section 100B of the TMA provides for an appeal against the determination of
such a penalty. Section 100B(2)(a) provides that in the case of a penalty
which is required to be of a particular amount, the Tribunal may
(i) if
it appears ... that no penalty has been incurred, set the determination aside,
(ii) if
the amount determined appears ... to be correct, confirm the determination, or
(iii) if
the amount determined appears ... to be incorrect, increase or reduce it to the
correct amount.
5. Section
118(2) of the TMA provides as follows:
(2) For
the purposes of this Act, a person shall be deemed not to have failed to do
anything required to be done within a limited time if he did it within such
further time, if any, as the Board or the tribunal or officer concerned may
have allowed; and where a person had a reasonable excuse for not doing anything
required to be done he shall be deemed not to have failed to do it unless the
excuse ceased and, after the excuse ceased, he shall be deemed not to have
failed to do it if he did it without unreasonable delay after the excuse had
ceased.
The arguments of the parties
6. The
Appellant’s case as stated in the undated notice of appeal is as follows: “Individual
dealing with the matter of P35 submissions had left the area. Problems were
not picked up until 2010 when every effort was made to then comply with HMRC
requests. This however proved problematic in itself appeared to take longer
than usual to respond to correspondence causing yet greater delays”.
7. The
HMRC statement of case states amongst other matters as follows. The filing
date for the P35 was 19 May 2009, and it was not filed until 28 February 2011.
On 28 September 2009, a first interim penalty notice of £400 was issued in
respect of the four months from 20 May 2009 to 19 September 2009. On 25 January
2010, a second interim penalty notice was issued in respect of the four months
from 20 September 2009 to 19 January 2010. On 24 May 2010, a third interim
penalty notice was issued in respect of the four months from 20 February 2010
to 19 May 2010. The Appellant did not appeal until after the deadline for so
doing, but HMRC do not object to the late appeal. The penalties were correctly
charged in accordance with the legislation. It is the responsibility of the
employer to ensure that their tax affairs are up to date, and reliance on an employee
cannot be a reasonable excuse. The employer should have adequate procedures in
place to ensure that the P35 filing obligation is fulfilled. The Appellant has
not shown any exceptional circumstance that could amount to a reasonable excuse.
The Tribunal’s view
8. The
Tribunal notes that the Appellant has not disputed that the return was filed
late on 28 February 2011. The Appellant has not
sought to dispute the amount of the penalty, in the event that there is no
reasonable excuse.
9. The
only explanation provided by the Appellant as to what is claimed to amount to a
reasonable excuse is that quoted in paragraph 6 above. The Appellant does not
give any more specific details of the circumstances. Nor does the Appellant
provide any evidence in support.
10. The Tribunal
considers that this very brief and general statement contained in the notice of
appeal, of itself cannot be sufficient to establish a reasonable excuse for the
late filing of the P35, given especially that it was filed nearly 2 years
late. The burden is on the Appellant to establish a reasonable excuse, on a
balance of probabilities. The Tribunal finds that the Appellant has not
discharged that burden.
Conclusion
11. Thus, under
s.100B(2)(a)(ii) of the TMA, the Tribunal confirms the penalties and dismisses
the appeal.
12. 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.
DR CHRISTOPHER STAKER
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 20 OCTOBER 2011