British
and Irish Legal Information Institute
Freely Available British and Irish Public Legal Information
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Imrie (t/a K Imrie Tree Care) v Customs & Excise [2004] UKVAT V18555 (26 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18555.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18555
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
Default Surcharge: Cash flow problems; insufficient information provided by Appellant. Appeal dismissed.
EDINBURGH TRIBUNAL CENTRE
DAVID KENNEDY FREW IMRIE
T/A K IMRIE TREE CARE Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents
Tribunal: (Chairman): Mrs G Pritchard, BL., MBA., WS
Sitting in Edinburgh on Thursday 25 March 2004
for the Appellants HEARD ON PAPERS ONLY
for the Respondents Mr A McCue
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004.
DECISION
This is an appeal against a Default Surcharge imposed in respect of the quarter 05/03 with a due date of payment of 30/06/03 levied at the rate of 15% and amounting to £8,239.14. The Appellant had two grounds of appeal. The first was stated on 28 July 2003 that the return had not been sent as the Appellant had been on holiday. The Commissioners do not make an issue of this, and no finding is made with regard to the lateness of the return itself.
However payment had not been received by the due date, which is the main subject of this appeal. He had asked for a cash flow problem to be taken into account.
Mr David Imrie had requested that the matter be dealt with on a papers only basis at today's Hearing. Much later he had advised the Tribunal he was unable to attend and had been reminded that he had asked for a papers only procedure. He had confirmed to the clerk that he wished to proceed on his written submission.
The Commissioners were represented by Mr A McCue.
The Appellant had submitted with respect to payment that although he had a history of being in the default surcharge regime he did have difficulty with his main customer namely Scottish Power and had at most times an outstanding balance due to him of over £100,000. He advised that he had cash flow difficulties. In light of the information which he gave to the Commissioners they wrote on 15 September 2003, requesting information with regard to his customer base, particular details of delays in payment and normal payment patterns, specific details of bad debts and the periods to which they related and any other information relevant to his appeal.
The Appellant advised that 95% of his income was from Sp Power Systems. He attached a list of monies due as at the date of the letter namely 29 October 2003. Unfortunately he did not reply fully to the letter giving the details requested. Only six of the invoices related to the period of the return and they were disproportionately low to the turnover declared on the appropriate return. He was advised of this on 31 October 2003 but has so far not provided the necessary information to the Commissioners or to this Tribunal so that some consideration might have been given to the proportion of 95% which he advised the Commissioners.
The case of Steptoe v Commissioners of Customs and Excise provides that where one particular customer is the source of a considerable delay in payment, creating cash flow problems which are unable to be resolved by the taxpayer some consideration can be given to the cash flow difficulty. However the case is very specific and without the details requested, no change could be made to the Commissioner's decision.
It is for the Appellant to prove his claim and in this he has failed. The appeal is refused. No expenses are found due to or by either party.
MRS G PRITCHARD, BL., MBA., WS
CHAIRMAN
RELEASE: 26 MARCH 2004
EDN/03/75