[2013] UKFTT 195 (TC)
TC02610
Appeal number: TC/2012/10382
INCOME TAX – PENALTY FOR LATE FILING OF END OF YEAR PAYE RETURN – Whether the Appellant filed the return on time – No – Did the Appellant have a reasonable excuse for default – Yes – Appeal allowed.
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
WAYNE WATKINS OIL BURNER SERVICES LIMITED |
Appellant |
|
|
|
|
- and - |
|
|
|
|
|
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S |
Respondents |
|
REVENUE & CUSTOMS |
|
TRIBUNAL: |
JUDGE MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE |
|
|
|
|
The Tribunal determined the appeal on 14 March 2013 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 5 November 2012, HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 20 December 2012 and the Appellant’s reply to the statement of case dated 2 January 2013.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
DECISION
4. The Upper Tribunal in HMRC v Hok Ltd [2012] UKUT 363 (TCC) re-affirmed the First Tier Tribunal’s limited jurisdiction in respect of penalty appeals, and in particular emphasised that it had no statutory power to adjust a penalty on the grounds of fairness. At paragraph 35 the Upper Tribunal said:
“It is important to bear in mind how the First-tier Tribunal came into being. It was created by s 3(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, “for the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it under or by virtue of this Act or any other Act”. It follows that its jurisdiction is derived wholly from statute. As Mr Vallat correctly submitted, the statutory provision relevant here, namely TMA s 100B, permits the tribunal to set aside a penalty which has not in fact been incurred, or to correct a penalty which has been incurred but has been imposed in an incorrect amount, but it goes no further. In particular, neither that provision nor any other gives the tribunal discretion to adjust a penalty of the kind imposed in this case, because of a perception that it is unfair or for any similar reason. Pausing there, it is plain that the First-tier Tribunal has no statutory power to discharge, or adjust, a penalty because of a perception that it is unfair”.
6. The Tribunal makes the following findings of fact:
(1) On 3 May 2012 the Appellant’s agent submitted a return on-line for which it received an e-mail from HMRC confirming that the submission reference 475/MA61096 had been successfully filed.
(2) Following receipt of the penalty notice the agent spoke with HMRC and discovered that the return filed on 3 May 2012 had been a test submission. The Appellant’s agent immediately resubmitted the return successfully on 11 June 2012.
(3) HMRC’s e-mail was generic for both test and live submissions, although it stated that if this was a test transmission, remember you still need to send your actual Employer annual return using the live transmission in order for it to be processed.
(4) The Appellant’s agent held an honest belief that the return had been filed on time.
(5) The Appellant is responsible for the actions of its agent.
8. The Tribunal allows the Appeal and cancels the penalty in the sum of ₤100.
MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE