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) >>
Ivison v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 830 (TC) (15 December 2011)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2011/TC01666.html
Cite as:
[2011] UKFTT 830 (TC)
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Michael and Julie Ivison v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 830 (TC) (15 December 2011)
INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX
Penalty
[2011] UKFTT 830 (TC)
TC01666
Appeal number: TC/2011/04583
Income
Tax – Penalty – Schedule 36 Finance Act 2008 – whether information supplied
fulfilled terms of notice requesting information – Appeal refused.
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX
MICHAEL
AND JULIE IVISON Appellant
-
and -
THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
REVENUE
AND CUSTOMS Respondents
TRIBUNAL JUDGE:W Ruthven Gemmell, WS
Sitting in public at George
House, 126 George Street, Edinburgh on Friday 11 November 2011
Case heard on papers only
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
2011
DECISION
Introduction
1. This
is an application by Michael and Julie Ivison (“MJ”) against a penalty issued
by Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (“HMRC”) for £300 relating to the non
submission of information requested in a formal notice under Paragraph 1,
Schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008.
2. The
appeal against the penalty was on the grounds that the information required in
the notice had already been provided before the penalty was issued.
Facts
3. HMRC
issued a notice on 27 September 2010 asking for the following information
documents:-
(1)
Details of all employees for whom employment was not reported on form
P14 for the 2007-2008 tax year;
(2)
Copies of the forms P46 or P38(S) showing the reason why payment was not
reported on form P14;
(3)
If forms P46 or P38(S) are not held the names, addresses and National
Insurance numbers for each worker are required;
(4)
A breakdown of the total discrepancy showing how much was paid to each
worker.
4. The
information had been requested, as had been set out in HMRC’s letter of 15 July
2010, as the total wages shown in MJ’s accounts for 2007-2008 amounted to
£46,364 whereas the total wages and Employer’s National Insurance Contributions,
shown on MJ’s form P35, amounted to only £29,286.
5. A
dispute had taken place over the availability of the records as Michael Ivison
who dealt with the 2007-2008 PAYE side of the business left the business in
2010 as did the bookkeeper involved in PAYE for MJ.
6. MJ’s
current agents, Paterson Reid, were not dealing with the tax affairs of the business
in 2007-2008.
7. Extensions
to time limits were agreed by MJ and HMRC but as no information or
documentation had been received, notice was given by HMRC on 19 January 2011
that penalties under Section 39, Schedule 36 of the Finance Act 2008 would be
pursued if the details referred to in the notice of 27 December 2010 were not provided
by 2 February 2011.
8. On
19 January 2011, crossing in the post, MJ’s agent, Paterson Reid, submitted a
schedule providing a breakdown of wages and costs showing the names, addresses and
amounts paid to all employees but the schedule clearly stated the information
was for 2008-2009 and not 2007-2008 as requested.
9. As
such, the information requested on 27 September 2010 was still outstanding and a penalty notice was issued on 7 February 2011 charging a fixed penalty of
£300.
10. On 18 March 2011, Paterson Reid apologised for the error and advised that the information
submitted for 2008-2009 was actually for 2007-2008.
11. They also included
further schedules amended from 2008-2009 which they advised were a week by week
analysis of the wages record in an attempt to reconcile their figures to the
wages figure in the partnership accounts of £46,364 although there was still a
discrepancy of £442.
Legislation
12.
The Finance
Act 2008 -
SCHEDULE 36 Information
and inspection powers
Part 1 Powers to obtain
information and documents
Power to
obtain information and documents from taxpayer
(1) An officer of
Revenue and Customs may by notice in writing require a person ("the taxpayer")–
(a) to provide information, or
(b) to produce a
document,
if the
information or document is reasonably required by the officer for the purpose
of checking the taxpayer´s tax position.
(2) In this Schedule,
"taxpayer notice" means a notice under this paragraph.
Submissions by the Party
13. MJ say that the
notice for 2007-2008 was addressed to them at the Cross Inn, Paxton, Berwick
upon Tweed.
14. The notice was
received by Mrs Ivison as by that time the couple had separated in June 2010 leaving
Mrs Ivison to run the business.
15. Mrs Ivison was
also taking care of her son and daughter and had a very limited knowledge of
bookkeeping and PAYE.
16. She had to
change her bookkeeper and also her accountants as her husband had been in charge
of dealing with the bookkeeping and dealing with the operation of PAYE.
17. Mrs Ivison had
great difficulty in obtaining the requested information but managed to produce parts
of this by 19 January 2011.
18. Paterson Reid say
there was a typing error on the schedule which they accept was entirely their
error as this stated 2008-2009 instead of 2007-2008.
19. Paterson Reid realised
their error on 18 March 2011 and wrote apologising, enclosing a copy of the
previous agent’s working papers showing the analysis of the accounts figure.
20. Paterson and Reid
say that they have no argument with HMRC being entitled to ask for information
specified in the information notice but say that Mr Wood, the reviewing officer,
arrived at the wrong conclusion by not looking at the details of the
information notice.
21. Paterson Reid say
the reviewing officer was concerned he was unable to reconcile forms P14 together
with the reconciliation of the figures shown in the accounts and enclosed a further
three forms P14 stating that these did not reconcile with the information.
22. Paterson Reid say
that Mrs Ivison was unable to supply details of all employees for whom payments
were not reported on form P14 and copies of forms P46 showing the reason payment
was not reported on forms P14.
23. They say HMRC
have been given a full analysis of the wages showing the names, addresses and amounts
paid to each worker but no NI numbers had been shown as it would not be
necessary to have the NI numbers for some of the employees. Paterson Reid
claim that the information notice had been totally discharged and, as such, no
fine should be levied for the supply of non information.
Submissions for HMRC
24. HMRC say that Paterson
Reid supplied the wrong information as this was headed up applying to 2008-2009
which was not requested in the notice. Consequently, the information requested
for 2007-2008 remained outstanding.
25. Some two months
later Paterson Reid acknowledged that they had incorrectly headed up the
schedule and resent a number of spreadsheets.
26. HMRC carried out
their review and were unable to reconcile the wages schedule supplied by Paterson
Reid for named individuals, allegedly for 2007-2008, against P14 end of year
documents already submitted by the employer for 2007-2008.
27. HMRC say the
figures were markedly different.
28. HMRC say that
two employees whose P14s had already been supplied by the employer did not
appear on Paterson Reid’s wage analysis schedule for 2007-2008 and that they
were C Bell and Claire Jeffrey.
29. HMRC say that the
previous agent’s trial balance included a figure for 2007-2008 of £7,106 paid
to self employed bar staff included the figure of £46,364. Paterson Reid’s
schedule showed income paid to self employed staff of £189.88.
30. Paterson Reid’s
schedule showed income paid to self employed bar staff at £189.88.
31. HMRC say that
the information supplied does not explain the discrepancy in the wages figure
and that the information requested on 27 September is still outstanding.
32. HMRC say that
they were correct in issuing the penalty.
33. HMRC say that
the taxpayer must supply the information requested or confirm the information does
not exist.
34. Supplying something
else that was not requested or was not relevant to the point at issue does not
satisfy the requirements of the legislation.
Reasons for the Decision
35. The Tribunal
note the difficult circumstances in which Mrs Ivison found herself when submitting
her 2007-2008 tax return.
36. It is clear that
there was an error by Paterson Reid, a firm of Chartered Accountants.
37. HMRC identified a
discrepancy between the employed costs reported on forms P14 for the 2007-2008
tax year and the costs reported on the corresponding self assessment return and
asked for four specific items of information.
38. The Tribunal
accept that HMRC would accept such information on its face value, that is to
say 2008-2009, from a firm of such professional standing especially when they
knew that Paterson Reid did not act for the firm for the tax year 2007-2008.
39. The Tribunal do
not accept that the information that was provided satisfied the requirements of
the notice, particularly in relation to providing a breakdown of the
discrepancy, and, accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
40. 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.
W RUTHVEN GEMMELL, WS
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 15 DECEMBER 2011
