United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Chaffont Line Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT V19264 (21 September 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19264.html
Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19264

---

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

---

Chaffont Line Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT V19264 (21 September 2005)

 


19264

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE Reference No: LON/2005/520

Copy sent to:

Appellant/Applicant

Respondents

Appellant CHAFFONT LINE LIMITED

- and -

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: RODNEY P HUGGINS (Chairman)

MICHAEL M. SILBERT (FRICS)

Sitting in Public in London on 14 September 2005

DIRECTION

Under Rule 30(8)

This appeal against a decision of the Respondents with respect to a surcharge assessment dated 1 March 2005 in the sum of £5216,36 and being a reasonable excuse appeal as defined by rule 2 of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 as amended coming on for hearing this day

AND UPON HEARING Mr Terence Reynolds, Chairman for the Appellant and Mrs Pauline Crinnon of the Solicitor's office of HM Revenue and Excise for the Respondents

AND THIS TRIBUNAL heaving heard this appeal and having announced its decision

AND the Appellant and the Respondents by their said representatives stating pursuant to rule 30(8) of the said Rules as amended that they do not require the said decision to be recorded in a written document in accordance with rule 30(1) of the said Rules

THIS TRIBUNAL finds that the Appellant does not have a reasonable excuse for the default which resulted in the Respondents making the assessment under appeal

AND THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTS that this appeal is dismissed because although the Appellant's book-keeper stole some £10,000 at the beginning of January the Appellant allowed her to continue in employment until the end of January when the return and tax were due to be filed and paid and did not seek assistance from the Company's Accountants until mid-February. In any event the Tribunal finds that the Appellant would have had in sufficiency of founds to pay the VAT due irrespective of the book-keeper's dishonesty

AND that there is to be no direction as to costs

RODNEY D. HUGGINS Chairman Release Date: 21 September 2005