The evidence

3.           The Tribunal was provided with:

(1)        the correspondence between the parties;

(2)        a professional valuation of a property at 334-336 Goswell Road, London (“the property”);

(3)        three documents entitled “deed of assignment” and dated 4 April 2008, 25 June 2008 and 23 April 2010;

(4)        the capital gains tax pages from Mr Amin’s 2008-09 tax return; and

(5)        a number of documents relating to the charity Akina Mama Wa Afrika, including its report and accounts for the years to March 2006, 2007 and 2008.

The facts

14.        On 16 February 2012, HMRC issued the Notice. It required that the following information be provided:

(1)        The use that Mr Amin had made of the Goswell Road property during his period of ownership “in detail”.

(2)        Income and expenses relating to the property, by tax year, and if no income was received, why this was the case.

(3)        Where the above information was placed on his tax returns.

(4)        What was represented by sums shown on his tax returns as “other business income”.

(5)        How Mr Amin had calculated the acquisition cost.

(6)        The disposal value he wished to use.

(7)        How the incidental costs of disposal had been calculated.

16.        On 29 March 2012 Mr Amin wrote a short letter to HMRC. He said:

“It appears that this case is open for sometime and at centre the issue is entreprunial relief. I request you to attend my offices by prior appointment ASAP to run through your issues in the meeting and visiting the subject premises.”

18.        By letter dated 30 April 2012, Mr Amin appealed the penalty as follows:

“we make an appeal against the penalty £300 on the grounds that we requested your office to visit our office and deal with the issues on visit basis, where one of the issue is who occupies the premises. This was already answered however he had requested this again. You can visit our premises by prior appointment with the writer.”

20.        In Mr Amin’s appeal to the Tribunal he said, under “grounds of appeal”:

“1. An offer of a a meeting was made to HMRC in our letter of 29/03/12 to visit the premises and to discuss the queries HMRC have. This would have helped to assist HMRC in the information they required and to have concluded the enquiry.

2. The offer of the meeting at the premises was not considered in the review.”

The scope of the appeal and the issue in the case

The legislation

Penalties for failure to comply or obstruction

(1) This paragraph applies to a person who—

(a) fails to comply with an information notice, or

(b) ….

(2) The person is liable to a penalty of £300.

Reasonable excuse

 (1) Liability to a penalty under paragraph 39 or 40 does not arise if the person satisfies HMRC or (on an appeal notified to the tribunal) the tribunal that there is a reasonable excuse for the failure….

Mr Amin’s submissions

HMRC’s submissions

27.        HMRC submitted that the Notice required that the information be provided in writing. This was for the following reasons:

(1)        the current use of the property was not evidence of its use at the material time;

(2)        the information requested involved a lot of detail, including calculations and analysis, and needed to be written down;

(3)        there was a risk of error if the information was supplied orally.

Discussion

Decision and appeal rights