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) >>
J and P Windows Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 262 (TC) (19 April 2013)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02670.html
Cite as:
[2013] UKFTT 262 (TC)
[
New search]
[
Printable PDF version]
[
Help]
J and P Windows Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 262 (TC) (19 April 2013)
VAT - PENALTIES
Default surcharge
[2013] UKFTT 262 (TC)
TC02670
Appeal number:
TC/2013/00419
VAT – default surcharge – reasonable
excuse - appeal dismissed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
J AND P WINDOWS
LTD
|
Appellant
|
|
|
|
|
- and -
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
|
Respondents
|
|
REVENUE &
CUSTOMS
|
|
TRIBUNAL:
|
JUDGE J. BLEWITT
|
|
MR DAVID E WILLIAMS CTA
|
Sitting in public at Bedford Square , London on 15 April 2013
The Appellant did not appear
and was represented
Mr Robinson, Officer of HM
Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
2013
DECISION
1.
The Appellant did not attend and was not represented. The Tribunal had
sent notification of the hearing to the address held on file for the Appellant
which had been returned as “addressee gone away”. The Tribunal had been
informed (the details of which were unknown to us) that the Appellant had been
declared bankrupt and is now trading under a different name. A voicemail
message was left for Mr Harris, who had corresponded with the Tribunal on behalf
of the Appellant, requesting that he contact the Tribunal as a matter of
urgency however no response was received. Checks made with Companies House
showed that there were no receiver details recorded for the Appellant.
2.
In those circumstances, we had insufficient information to be satisfied
as to the current position of the Appellant. A Tribunal Judge had kept the case
listed on the basis that the Appellant had been notified of the hearing and on
that basis we were satisfied that it was in the interests of justice to proceed
in the Appellant’s absence. Should further information come to light or
verification of the information given to the Tribunal be provided, an
application can be made to review this decision.
3.
By Notice of Appeal dated 7 December 2012 the Appellant appealed against
a penalty in the sum of £2,299.64 for late payment of VAT in the period 09/12
charged at 15% on the basis that this was the 6th period in which
payment had been made late.
4.
The issue in this case was very narrow and set out in the Appellant’s
Notice of Appeal and attached letter dated 27 November 2012 which stated that
the Appellant had intended to pay its VAT for the period 09/12 on 7th
November 2012 (that being the due date for online payment) however he did not
realise that having made payment after 3:30pm the payment would not, under the
arrangements operated by his bank, clear until the following day. The Appellant
submitted in its letter dated 27 November 2012 that the Company has struggled
due to customers defaulting on payments and that it would financially struggle
if a surcharge was imposed.
5.
We considered the Appellant’s submissions carefully. We were not
provided with any specific details regarding the underlying cause of the
Appellant’s cash flow difficulties arising from defaulting customers and in
such circumstances we could not be satisfied that such problems were beyond
those to be expected in the normal course of business or that the Appellant had
taken any steps to avoid or overcome such difficulties. We therefore found as a
fact that there was no reasonable excuse on this basis.
6.
We noted that the electronic acknowledgement from HMRC upon receipt of
the Appellant’s VAT return (both in the period relevant to this appeal and
earlier periods) warned the Appellant prior to his online payment that before
making a Faster Payment he should check with his bank as to “any daily value
limits and the latest cut off times for making payment”. While we were
sympathetic to the fact that the Appellant had no doubt used the Faster Payment
system in order to ensure that payment was made on time, he fell foul of the
cut off time for making a same day payment and consequently it was made late. We
found as a fact that the Appellant had received adequate warning about the
methods of making online payments from HMRC and that the only explanation put
forward by the Appellant, namely that he was not aware that he had missed the
cut off time, could not amount to a reasonable excuse.
7.
The appeal is dismissed.
8.
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.
J.
BLEWITT
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 19 April 2013