PML Accounting Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs, TC 04612
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judge | Nicholas Aleksander |
| Judgment Date | 10 September 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] UKFTT 0440 (TC) |
| Respondent | The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs |
| Appellant | PML Accounting Limited |
| Reference | TC 04612 |
| Court | First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2015] UKFTT 0440 (TC)
TC04612
Appeal number:TC/2013/07182
and TC/2014/01808
PENALTIES – taxpayer information notice issued to alleged MSC Provider
- compliance with information notice – reasonable excuse – whether notice
related to tax position of MSC Provider or of its clients – whether third party
notice should have been issued - validity of notice - rights of clients under
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
PML ACCOUNTING LIMITED Appellant
- and -
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S Respondents
REVENUE & CUSTOMS
TRIBUNAL:
JUDGE ALEKSANDER
REBECCA NEWNS
Sitting in public at Bedford Square on 8 July 2014
Mr McCloskey, tax consultant, for the Appellant
Mr Khawar, an officer of HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents
2
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2015
3
DECISION
1. This is an appeal by PML Accounting Limited (“PML”) against penalty notices
issued under Schedule 36, Finance Act 2008 for failure to comply with an information 5 notice dated 26 November 2012 (“the Information Notice”). On 20 March 2013
HMRC issued an initial penalty notice for £300. On 24 May 2013 HMRC issued a
penalty notice for daily penalties of £20 per day for 44 days (20 March 2013 to 2 May
2013), totalling £880. On 17 June 2013 HMRC issued a penalty notice for daily
penalties of £30 per day for 36 days (3 May 2013 to 7 June 2013), totalling £1080. 10 On 15 November 2013 HMRC issued a penalty notice for daily penalties of £20 per
day for 115 days (8 June 2013 to 30 September 2013) totalling £2300. The penalties
amount to £4560 in total.
2. Mr McCloskey represented PML and Mr Khawar represented HMRC at the
hearing of the appeal. A bundle of documents was presented at the hearing, but no 15 witness statements were presented to the Tribunal at, or in advance of, the hearing,
nor did anyone give oral evidence. After the hearing we gave directions permitting
PML to submit additional written evidence relating to the accident suffered by Mr
Paul Hazell’s daughter, and the illness of Mr Richard Hazell, and giving HMRC the
opportunity to respond to such evidence. We also directed that the parties should 20 provide written submissions relating to various issues of law raised during the course
of the hearing.
3. We received witness statements from Mr Paul Hazell and from Mr Richard
Hazell following the hearing in accordance with our directions. These were not
challenged by HMRC. 25
4. We also received submissions received from the parties, but these were far from
adequate, and did not consider in sufficient depth (if at all) the various issues on
which the parties were directed to make submissions, nor did they address many of
the cases of which the Tribunal was aware that would be relevant to the issues in this
appeal. The Tribunal therefore initially issued this decision in draft, and invited the 30 parties to make representations in respect of the draft before the decision was
finalised. This final decision notice takes account of the representations made by the
parties following the issue of the draft decision.
The Law
5. There is set out in an appendix to this decision: 35
(1) Extracts from Part V, Taxes Management Act 1970 (“TMA”) dealing with
the conduct of appeals
(2) Extracts from Chapter 9, Part 2, and Part 11 Income Tax (Earnings and
Pensions) Act 2003 (“ITEPA”), relating to “managed service companies”
(“MSCs”) 40
To continue reading
Request your trial