United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Cobb McCallum & Company v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKVAT V19668 (21 July 2006)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2006/V19668.html
Cite as: [2006] UKVAT V19668

---

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

---

Cobb McCallum & Company v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKVAT V19668 (21 July 2006)

19668

Default Surcharge. Clerical error. Bank refused payment. Poor Compliance History. Appeal refused.

EDINBURGH TRIBUNAL CENTRE

COBB MCCALLUM & COMPANY Appellant(s)

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE & CUSTOMS Respondents

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

Sitting in Edinburgh on Wednesday 12 July 2006

for the Appellant(s) Mr John McLaren

for the Respondents Mr Russell Harrison

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006.

DECISION

This is an appeal against a default surcharge imposed for the quarter 01/06 in the sum of £1208.70. Mr John McLaren appeared for the Appellant and Mr Russell Harrison for HMRC.

The facts are not in dispute. On 27/02/06 Mr John McLaren wrote a cheque for VAT due for the quarter 01/06 due on 28/02/06. He posted it with his return for the quarter on 27/02/06 expecting it to reach Southend-on-Sea timeously which it might have. When the cheque was received however it was found to have been wrongly dated 27/6/02. It was however routinely presented by HMRC to the Appellant's bank but was not met as it was "out of date". The Appellant made an inadvertent clerical error.

HMRC did not accept the inadvertence of a clerical error in this case as there is a long history of surcharges.

On looking at the file and hearing the Appellant it appeared these surcharges were all due to minor breaches of perhaps only short periods of late arrival of the return and payment but they did disclose a repeated history of lack of organisation.

Mr McLaren was upset that on this one occasion when he was timeous and sufficient money was in the bank no allowance was made for a clerical error.

The pattern of lack of observance of the demands of running a business successfully did Mr McLaren no credit.

For this reason I refused the appeal though with some sympathy for the Appellant as the error did appear genuine and not just a fudge to delay payment.

The appeal is therefore dismissed. No expenses are found due to or by either party.

MRS G PRITCHARD, BL., MBA., WS

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE: 21 JULY 2006

EDN/06/32