United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Splendid Hotel Group v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT V20786 (29 August 2008)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2008/V20786.html
Cite as: [2008] UKVAT V20786

---

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

---

Splendid Hotel Group v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT V20786 (29 August 2008)

20786

VAT – Default surcharge – Reasonable excuse

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

SPLENDID HOTEL GROUP Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE & CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: CHARLES HELLIER (Chairman)

SUNIL DAS

Sitting in public in London on 2 July 2008

Rajela Cheema for the Appellant

Jonathan Holl, advocate, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008


 


DECISION
1. The Appellant appealed against a default surcharge imposed under section 59A of the VAT Act 1994, in respect of late payment of VAT for the 10/07 period (the period ending on 31 October 2007).
2. The Appellant was required under the monthly payment on account regime to make a payment of £98,907 to the Commissioners so that it reached them on 28 September 2007. The payment reached the Commissioners on 1 October 2007.
3. Mr Cheema explained that the delay arose as the result of a clerical error. The clerk had been given the instruction to the bank to make the payment by CHAPS, on the morning of 28 September 2007. She was sidetracked and did not contact the bank until after 3:30pm. The bank's cut off time for implementing instructions for same day CHAPS payments was 3:30pm. The payment was therefore made after 28 September. Apart from the demands placed on the clerk by normal office duties and training another member of staff, Mr Cheema advanced no other reason for the delay.
4. Under section 59A(8) a default will not give rise to a surcharge if there is a reasonable excuse for the default. But by section 71 neither mere reliance on another person nor their dilatoriness or inaccuracy can constitute a reasonable excuse.
5. We had considerable sympathy for the Appellant but did not find that it had a reasonable excuse. The only reason for the delay was the clerk's oversight or delay, and by section 71 that could not constitute a reasonable excuse. Neither were there any circumstances explaining that delay which constituted a reasonable excuse.
6. We therefore dismiss the appeal. Our decision was unanimous.
CHARLES HELLIER CHAIRMAN RELEASED: 29 August 2008

LON/2008/432