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) >>
Dunn v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 550 (TC) (29 August 2012)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2012/TC02227.html
Cite as:
[2012] UKFTT 550 (TC)
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
Christopher Dunn v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 550 (TC) (29 August 2012)
INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX
Penalty
[2012] UKFTT 550 (TC)
TC02227
Appeal number:
TC/2012/01097
INCOME TAX – construction
industry scheme- penalty under section 98A Taxes Management Act 1970- late
submission of monthly return – whether reasonable excuse
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
CHRISTOPHER DUNN
|
Appellant
|
|
|
|
|
- and -
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
|
Respondents
|
|
REVENUE &
CUSTOMS
|
|
TRIBUNAL:
|
JUDGE GUY BRANNAN
|
|
|
The Tribunal determined the
appeal on 17 August 2012 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 4 January 2012 (with
enclosures), HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 1 March 2012(with
enclosures).
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
2012
DECISION
1.
This is an appeal against a penalty imposed under section 98 A Taxes
Management Act 1970 ("TMA") in respect of the late submission of a
monthly construction industry scheme ("CIS") return for the month
ended 5 September 2011.
The legislation
2.
The statutory provisions relating to the CIS are contained in Part 3
Finance Act 2004. Section 70 Finance Act 2004 permits HMRC to make regulations
in relation to returns under the CIS, including periodic returns.
3.
A contractor within the CIS must send a completed monthly return in
respect of each monthly period to reach HMRC not later than the 19th day of
each month (Regulation 4 The Income Tax (CIS) Regulations 2005 ("the
Regulations")). In more detail, Regulation 4 provides that the return must
be made no later than 14 days after the end of every tax month and Regulation 2
defines a tax month as the period beginning on the sixth day of a calendar
month and ending on the fifth day of the following calendar month.
4.
A contractor is required to make a "nil" return pursuant to
Regulation 4 of the Regulations even though no payment has been made to a
subcontractor in respect of the relevant month (Regulation 4 (10)). This
requirement does not apply if the contractor has notified HMRC that no further
payments will be made under construction contracts within the following six
months (Regulation 4 (11)). Ahere this occurs monthly returns are not issued to
the contractor. However, a contractor who notifies HMRC of the period of
inactivity becomes liable to file a monthly return if he makes a payment to a
subcontractor in this period.
5.
Section 98A TMA (2) and (3) provides for penalties in respect of
failures to make returns in accordance with, inter-alia, Regulation 4 (see
Regulation 4 (13)). In the present case the relevant penalty is £100.
6.
Section 118 (2) TMA provides:
"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 ceased."
The facts
7.
The appellant notified HMRC period of future inactivity on his return
for the month ended 5 July 2011. Accordingly, HMRC did not issue CIS returns
for subsequent months.
8.
The appellant paid a contractor in the period ended 5 September 2011
and, consequently, was under an obligation to submit a return by 19 September
2011.
9.
The appellant notified HMRC by telephone of this payment on 13 September
2011, requesting a return and a return was thereupon issued to the appellant.
HMRC’s electronic records state that a replacement return was issued to the
appellant on 13 December 2011. It is not clear whether this means the return
was posted on that day or simply that the necessary documentation was produced
on that day with posting occurring on the following day. The appellant did not
receive the return until 19 September (ie the day it was due to be submitted).
He completed it and posted it first-class the same day. The return was received
on 22 September 2011.
10.
The appellant had previously tried to register with HMRC for CIS online
services. HMRC's website contains guidance on how to register and the process
was explained to the appellant in a letter dated 30 August 2011. The
appellant's attempt to register was unsuccessful – he described himself as
being "only semiliterate with regard to IT." He said that he was
"beaten by the system."
11.
The appellant complained that HMRC failed to send him a return form for
the period ended 5 September 2011 until 19 September 2011. The appellant made
two calls to what he described as "the inaccessible [HMRC] helpline"
to request that a form be sent. He was told that his account was "not
active."
12.
The appellant submitted late returns for the months ended 5 March, 5 May
and 5 June 2011 but had his appeals against penalties upheld by HMRC. In
letters dated 5 May 2011 and 30 August 2011 HMRC advised the appellant
regarding CIS online filing, proof of postage and periods of inactivity.
13.
The appellant is a registered carer for his disabled wife and is a carer
for his mother who is 91.
Decision
14.
The appellant telephoned HMRC on 13 September (a Tuesday). If the return
was posted on 14 September (Wednesday) it should have been delivered on Friday
or Saturday i.e. 16 or 17 September. There seems to be no dispute that it was
actually received on 19 September (i.e. the following Monday). In my view, the
appellant left it too late to call HMRC and request a replacement monthly return.
He should have been aware from his experiences earlier in the year of the need
to file his returns on time and to exercise caution regarding the amount of
time the post can sometimes take to reach its destination. On this occasion he
"cut it too fine." It was his responsibility to ensure the return was
received in time. He should have contacted HMRC earlier than 13 September and
he has given no reason why he failed to do so.
15.
In my view, therefore, the appellant did not have a reasonable excuse
for his failure to submit his monthly return in time and that the penalty was
correctly charged.
16.
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.
GUY BRANNAN
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 29 August 2012