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) >>
Candlestick Company v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 736 (TC) (14 November 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2011/TC01573.html
Cite as:
[2011] UKFTT 736 (TC)
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Candlestick Company v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 736 (TC) (14 November 2011)
INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX
Penalty
[2011] UKFTT 736 (TC)
TC01573
Appeal number: TC/2011/04225
Partnership
– Late submission of partnership Return – Was there a reasonable excuse – Yes.
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX
CANDLESTICK
COMPANY Appellant
-
and -
THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE
AND CUSTOMS Respondents
TRIBUNAL:
LADY MITTING (TRIBUNAL JUDGE)
The Tribunal determined the
appeal on 5 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 dated 8 June 2011 and
HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 29 June 2011, the Appellant having filed no
Reply.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
2011
DECISION
1. The
Appellant is a partnership of Mr H Singh and Mr N Singh. On 6 April 2010, the
partnership was served with a partnership return for period 2009/10. The
filing date for submission of the return was 31 October 2010 if done on paper
or 31 January 2011 if filed on line. No return having been submitted, the
Respondents issued a penalty on or a few days after 15 February 2011 in the sum
of £100. A paper return was submitted to the Respondents on 2 March 2011.
2. The
Appellant appeals against the imposition of the penalty, it being their case
first that they did not receive the partnership return and secondly they did
not understand they were under an obligation to complete and return such a
return. The Notice of Appeal states that the partners went to the Respondent’s
Leicester office in or around April 2010 to seek advice on their tax position
given that this was their first business trading as partners and they had only
been going for some four months. It is maintained by the Appellant that the
tax adviser whom they saw advised them to fill in their individual
self-assessment forms but she did not advise them that they also had to fill in
a partnership return.
3. Dealing
firstly with the issue of whether or not the partnership return was received, I
fully accept that it was sent out by the Respondents and was not returned.
However, post does go missing and I have no reason to doubt the Appellants when
they say they did not receive it. I therefore am prepared to accept their
evidence that it was not received and so find as a fact.
4. It
appears to me that the two partners acted responsibly throughout. The
Respondents do not challenge that this was a new partnership and neither is it
challenged that the partners visited the Leicester Tax Office. What they were
advised, only they know. It is possible that they were missadvised. Equally,
it is possible that they were correctly advised but misunderstood. However, I
accept the submission which they make that they came away from that visit
believing that provided they completed the partnership sheets in their
individual self-assessment returns they would have complied with their
obligation. I stress that I am specifically not finding that there was any
misdirection by the Commissioners but when considering a reasonable excuse, the
important factor is the perception which the taxpayer came away with.
5. I
understand that it is accepted that the two partners both completed their
individual self-assessment forms and both completed the partnership pages
therein. My view that they acted reasonably and responsibly is enforced by the
fact that a partnership return was submitted within days of their receiving the
penalty notice. I take from this that until receipt of the penalty notice they
believed that they had acted perfectly properly and that nothing more was
expected of them. As soon as they realised that a partnership return should
have been submitted, they submitted it.
6. For
all these reasons I find that the Appellant throughout the default period, did
have a reasonable excuse for late submission of the partnership return. The
appeal is therefore allowed.
7. 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.
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 14 NOVEMBER 2011