First-tier Tribunal (Tax)

[2014] UKFTT 033 (TC)

TC03174

Appeal number: TC/2013/05284

PAYE – SELF-ASSESSMENT – TAX RETURN SUBMITTED ON PAPER  LATE  IN ERROR  THEN ELECTRONICALLY IN TIME – WHETHER THIS ALLOWED – WHETHER REASONABLE EXCUSE -  NO - APPEAL DISMISSED

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

TAX CHAMBER

The Tribunal determined the appeal on 6 December 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 28 July 2013 (with enclosures),  HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 23 October 2013(with enclosures) and the appellant’s reply dated 22 November 2013.

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013

DECISION

1 The appellant appeals against the decision of HMRC to impose a  penalty of £100  in terms of Paragraph 3 of Schedule 55 of the Finance Act 2009 for the late filing of her tax return for the year ending 5 April 2012. 

2. The appellant appealed against the penalty through her agents who explained that they had sent the tax return to the appellant for signature but rather than return it to them she had posted it ‘accidentally to the address on the return. It was received by HMRC on 16^th January 2013. The last date for filing a paper return was 31 October 2012. It is submitted that it would have  been obvious to HMRC that an error had occurred when they received the return in January. In the reply to the Statement of Case the appellant’s agents, her accountants,  say that the online return was submitted and accepted on 31 January with no rejection note to warn of any problem.

3. The position of HMRC is that the obligation was on the appellant to ensure that her return was filed in time. They accepted that she had made a genuine mistake but did  not consider this to be a reasonable excuse. They say that there is no legislative provision that allows a tax payer, having submitted a paper  return in error, to submit a second return to avoid a penalty charge. There is a provision enabling a tax payer to amend a return but not to replace it. They concluded that the appellant had not established that she has a reasonable excuse for the late filing of her return.

4.  I have given careful consideration to all the evidence before me. If a person is to rely on reasonable excuse, this must have existed for the whole of the period of default. A reasonable excuse is normally an unexpected or unusual event, either unforeseeable or beyond the person’s control, which prevents him from complying with an obligation when he otherwise would have done. The matter has to be considered in the light of the actions of a reasonable prudent tax payer exercising foresight and due diligence and having proper regard for his responsibilities under the Taxes Act.  

5. I accept that the appellant made a mistake but there is no information as to  what she was told by her agents to do with the return. In any event the paper return submitted in January was late and the position of HMRC that  there is no provision to allow a person to submit a paper return late then replace it with  an electronic one to avoid a penalty is reasonable and  I do not consider it unreasonable to expect that an accountant would know this. I do not accept that it would have been obvious to HMRC that an error had been made. It seems to me that in the absence of information to the contrary they were entitled to assume that the  return was a paper one lodged late.  In all the circumstances I  find that the appellant  has not established a reasonable excuse for her failure to pay the penalty charged.

6.  I dismiss the appeal.

7. 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.

N A BAIRD

TRIBUNAL JUDGE

RELEASE DATE 18 December 2013