United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> An Acair Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18749 (03 September 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18749.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18749

---

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

---

An Acair Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18749 (03 September 2004)

18749

Default Surcharge: Various excuses given but statutory exclusion applies, and insufficient evidence of grounds of appeal to reach reasonable excuse. Appeal refused.

EDINBURGH TRIBUNAL CENTRE

AN ACAIR LIMITED Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: (Chairman): Mrs G Pritchard, BL., MBA., WS

Sitting in Edinburgh on Thursday 19 August 2004

for the Appellant HEARD ON PAPERS ONLY

for the Respondents Mr A McCue

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004.


 
DECISION

This is an appeal against Default Surcharges imposed in respect of the periods 12/01, 03/02, 06/02, 09/02, 12/02, 03/03 and 06/03 having a current outstanding balance of £4,385.70, along with an appeal against Default Surcharge interest due on an assessment issued on 22/05/01.

There is no right of appeal against the rate or liability to interest in the circumstances, only on the calculation of the amount. Since no evidence was led on the calculation of the amount this part of the appeal is dismissed for want of prosecution under Rule 18(2) of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules SI 1986/590.

Mr Joseph Sweeney who had conducted the correspondence on behalf of the Appellant had requested the matter to proceed on the written evidence he had already supplied. The Commissioners were represented by Mr A McCue. The evidence consisted of a bundle of papers prepared by the Commissioners numbered 1-50. Reference is made to pages 18, 19, 20 and 21 which will be deemed as repeated here.

The basis of the Appellant's arguments was that he had had 3 different firms of accountants in the last 3 years, and that trading circumstances had been difficult due to a down turn in tourist numbers because of reluctance to travel over the Millennium, restrictions on movement of persons during foot and mouth outbreak, and unwillingness of persons to travel after the atrocities of September 11. In addition he commented on his attempts to pay off an outstanding VAT liability debt.

We found:

1. An Appellant is not entitled to rely on the services of a third party as a reasonable excuse for failure to make returns or pay Value Added Tax under Section 71(b) of the Value Added Tax Act (VATA) 1994.
2. In respect of the foot and mouth outbreak allowance had already been made in the 02/01 and 04/01 returns by the Commissioners.
3. The Appellant offered only a general assumption with regard to the downturn in tourism relating to both the Millennium and the 9/11 atrocities. He produced no hard evidence from the Tourist Office or the local statistics to show that there had been a seriously adverse trend in his local area to substantiate his argument.
4. He had a very poor record of compliance with the Commissioners and this has continued on beyond the appeal period even into this year.

With regard to his argument that he was already paying off VAT debt, he is in a trade where the Value Added Tax is collected at point of sale and is due to be accounted for timeously. It is not relevant to his current trading position to argue that that debt should be taken into account when considering the current appeal.

In all the circumstances I found no reasonable excuse for the failure to pay timeously in all of the quarters specified.

The appeal is therefore dismissed.

No expenses are found due to or by either party.

MRS G PRITCHARD, BL., MBA., WS CHAIRMAN
RELEASE: 3 SEPTEMBER 2004

EDN/04/27