United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Bluelines New Media Solutions LTD v Customs and Excise [2003] UKVAT V18136 (13 May 2003)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2003/V18136.html
Cite as: [2003] UKVAT V18136

---

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

Bluelines New Media Solutions LTD v Customs and Excise [2003] UKVAT V18136 (13 May 2003)

18136

Default Surcharge; reasonable excuse; change of accountants; late transmission of return and funds. Appeal Refused.

EDINBURGH TRIBUNAL CENTRE

BLUELINES NEW MEDIA SOLUTIONS LTD Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: (Chairman) T Gordon Coutts, QC

Sitting in Edinburgh on Tuesday 13 May 2003

for the Appellants Michael Hunter

for the Respondents Archie McCue

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2003.


 


DECISION

The trader, whose outputs were less than £100,000 per annum experienced cash flow difficulties. The trader's previous accountants who had negotiated a time to pay arrangement but who had got the company on to the surcharge liability ladder withdrew from acting. In about September 2002. Mr Hunter, who appeared for the company, was asked to act on 15 September 2002. Exercising due and appropriate caution he required information from the previous accountants which he did not get. Nonetheless by 31 October he had prepared a return. He did not submit this. He telephoned Customs Officers on 1 November and requested time to pay. He told the Tribunal that he thought that the arrangements could be put in place so that his first payment could be sent by cleared credit transfer to arrive by 7 November. That might have been practicable 7 November was a Thursday. However on no view, his request being made on 1 November, could he have reasonably expected to receive any documentation or forms of response until or after Monday 4 November. The documents did not arrive and further telephone contact was made on 6 November. Mr Hunter did not feel able to complete the requisite forms on the information he had to enable them to be dealt with by 7 November. It was not until 15 November that the first instalment payment by cheque arrived. The bank refused to honour that cheque.

The result of failure to honour the cheque meant that on any view not only had the return not been made but no payment had been made on any appropriate date. Accordingly the trader was in default.

The trader was in default by 1 November because the return could not have been submitted timeously on that date it being due on 31^st October at the offices of the Respondents.

The reasonable excuse urged upon the Tribunal by Mr Hunter centred round his own conduct which he claimed in the circumstances was reasonable.

The Tribunal sees no reason to doubt Mr Hunter nor to categorise his professional dealings as faulty in any way.

However the trader is the company. It is the company's responsibility so to arrange its affairs that payment can timeously be made. If Mr Hunter did not receive adequate information or instructions that was no fault of his and his client must take the responsibility therefor.

Accordingly the return was late; there was no reasonable excuse for that lateness since by statute depending upon others is not such an excuse. The Appeal is dismissed but it should be noted that Mr Hunter's behaviour in the whole matter is in no way criticised by the Tribunal.

T GORDON COUTTS, QC

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE: 13 MAY 2003.

EDN/02/188