United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Binding (t/a Marchway Security Services) v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT V20607 (06 March 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2008/V20607.html
Cite as: [2008] UKVAT V20607

---

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

---

Lionel Dale Binding (t/a Marchway Security Services v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT V20607 (06 March 2008)

20607

Value Added Tax - Default Surchage - Payment allegedly delayed by postal delays delaying various cheques being sent to the Appellant - Appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

LIONEL DALE BINDING T/A MARCHWAY SECURITY SERVICES Appellant

and –

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE & CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: HOWARD M NOWLAN (Chairman)

JOHN G ROBINSON

Sitting in public in London on 13 February 2008

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

R Waterson of HMRC's Solicitor's Office for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008


 


DECISION

1. This was a default surcharge appeal by the Appellant for the period 08/07. We have felt bound to dismiss the appeal for lack of evidence, but we would add that the case seemed border-line and had the Appellant been able to establish certain matters that we will outline below, it is possible that we would have allowed the Appeal. Since the case was heard in the absence of the Appellant the Appellant will be able to apply to the Tribunal within 14 days of the release of this decision for a re-hearing, which the Tribunal may or may not grant.
2. The facts given in a letter dated 3 November 2007 from the Appellant indicated that the Appellant had paid £2,792.19 on account of his VAT liability for the period by the due date, leaving £6,001 unpaid. At the time there was a postal dispute which resulted in certain payments being made to the Appellant being delayed such that the Appellant contended that if he had sent a further cheque to pay the balance of the VAT liability the cheque would not have been honoured. In an effort to make payment within the further 7 days given for electronic payments, the Appellant telephoned the VAT office on the Friday before the seventh day (Sunday) and again on the Monday. Payment of the balance was then paid by debit card.
3. Since payment on Monday 8 October was anyway late, little actually hinges on the detail point that payment by debit card does not rank as one of the forms by which payment can be made electronically by the seventh day after what would otherwise be the due date. For future purposes however the Appellant should note this point.
4. We were not shown any of the Appellant's bank statements and were given no indication that the Appellant's bank would not have agreed a short term overdraft in the light of the particular difficulty occasioned by the postal dispute. We were thus unable to judge which receipts due to the Appellant had been delayed, and whether the Appellant could have secured such a short term accommodation from his bank. We are however very conscious that the postal dispute and the delayed receipt of significant payment owing to the Appellant could, we considered, on appropriate facts occasion a reasonable excuse for late payment. We also note that by having paid what he could pay by the due date, and by twice telephoning the VAT office, the Appellant had certainly taken discharging his VAT obligations very seriously.
5. Without our being able to pre-judge whether the Tribunal would grant any requested re-hearing, or if it did what the outcome of that hearing might be, we would hope that if the Appellant was able to provide convincing evidence on the points on which we had no evidence, mentioned in the previous paragraph, the result might be different.

HOWARD M NOWLAN

CHAIRMAN

RELEASED: 6 March 2008

LON 2007/2035