Iliffe News and Media Ltd v Commissioners for HM’s Revenue & Customs
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 25 November 2013 |
| Neutral Citation | [2013] UKFTT 696 (TC) |
| Date | 25 November 2013 |
| Court | First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2013] UKFTT 696 (TC)
Judge Richard Barlow, Warren Snowdon.
John Atherton treasurer and Sheila Burgess secretary appeared for the Appellant
Rosalind Oliver presenting officer for the Respondents
PAYE - Incorrect declaration - Penalty - No reasonable excuse.
[1]The appellant is an unincorporated rugby union club which has one employee. It was required to submit an employer's annual return of PAYE for 2010/11 by 19 May 2011 and that return was required to be in two separate forms known as P35 and P14s. A P14 is required for each employee and the P35 is a composite return for all employees but as the appellant only has one employee the information is effectively the same.
[2]In fact the appellant only submitted the P14 on time and omitted to submit its P35 until after it had received a notice of the penalties of £300 for its non-submission.
[3]It was not in dispute that the appellant had failed to submit the P35 or that the P14 included all the information the respondents actually needed but the rules make it clear that both forms are required and that a penalty is due unless the taxpayer can show that it had a reasonable excuse for the a late submission.
[4]The Tribunal has sympathy for certain points made by the appellant. The first is that it is onerous to expect an organisation like the appellant to make its returns on-line. The second is that if the respondents had acted more quickly to warn them that the other form was needed the penalty would have been smaller. The third is that the respondents had shown themselves to be incompetent by sending a letter to the appellant without a full address, which the Royal Mail had misdirected via Norwich, and which had therefore been delayed, although we find that had no effect on the amount of the penalty.
[5]The legislature has decided that all such returns must be made on-line and although that is arguably unreasonably onerous for a small organisation we are powerless to remedy it.
[6]The Upper Tribunal decided in a case called R & C Commrs v Hok LtdTAX[2012] BTC 1711 that, on the facts of that case, the delay which gave rise to an increased penalty is not a ground for allowing an appeal. It seems that there may be scope to argue for such a reduction if it can be shown that the delay was deliberately created so as to increase the penalty. The appellant were not in a position to allege that.
[7]An indication of incompetence on the part of the respondents which has not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
R (on the application of British American Tobacco Ltd and Others) v Secretary of State for Health; R (on the application of Philip Morris Brands SARL and Others) v Secretary of State for Health; R (on the application of JT International SA and another) v
...mark continues to be recognised and goodwill thus has no value independently capable of assignment: see Iliffe News & Media v HMRC [2014] FSR 6. 728 In terms of substance the Secretary of State in any event denies that the Regulations interfere with the Claimants' marketable goodwill. The ......