Brentham Club Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 2014 |
| Date | 02 April 2014 |
| Court | First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2014] UKFTT B1 (TC)
Judge Ian W. Huddleston
Mrs Gloria Orimoloye, Officer, appeared on behalf of HMRC
Mr John Kinder, Chairman, appeared on behalf of the Appellant
PAYE - Failure to PAYE Returns and PAYE as due - Penalties raised under FA 2009, schedule 56Sch. 56 - Reasonable excuse - Appeal dismissed.
[1]This Appeal is against default surcharges levied under schedule 56Schedule 56 of the Finance Act 2009 for the late filing of PAYE returns and payments of PAYE in the tax year ending 5 April 2012. The total penalty is 2,059.91.
[2]The decision of the Tribunal was announced at the Hearing and by the agreement of HMRC and the Appellant it was agreed that a summary decision would be issued.
[3]Brentham Club Limited, is a not for profit organisation, which has been set up to promote sport amongst young people.
[4]The facts themselves are not in dispute (as the Appellant acknowledged) in that for the tax year in question there were, in fact, eleven breaches in terms of late filing and late payment of PAYE returns. This resulted in ten penalties issued under schedule 56Schedule 56 of the Finance Act 2009 - the first penalty in that year having been ignored but prompting a warning letter to the Appellant.
[5]The Appellant does not dispute those facts. The Appellant, however, asserts that it has a reasonable excuse in relation to each of the defaults and in support of that contention both in its appeal notice and in the oral evidence produced to the Tribunal asserted the following grounds as support of that argument:-
(2) that it is a voluntary organisation with limited resources available to it;
(3) that the Appellant had overreached itself in terms of undertaking an extension to Club premises in 2009 which resulted in on-going straightened financial circumstances leading it to be in financial difficulties meaning that in the year in question it was unable to discharge the PAYE payments;
(4) that it paid the PAYE liability as and when it could;
(5) that it felt that HMRC (through the contact which it had with both the officers of the Club) both in relation to PAYE and VAT payments, had failed to highlight that if the Club did not pay the tax and/or make the returns when due that it would face penalties.
[6]HMRC's case was relatively straightforward. Simply put, on the facts, its case was that there was an acknowledgement by the Appellant of eleven late filings...
To continue reading
Request your trial