Rocket Leisure Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 02 April 2014 |
| Date | 02 April 2014 |
| Court | First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) |
[2014] UKFTT B2 (TC)
Judge Ian W. Huddleston
VAT - Default surcharge - Reasonable excuse - section 71VATA 1994, s. 71 (A) - Reasonable excuse not accepted - Appeal dismissed.
[1]This is an Appeal against a review decision given to the Appellant on the 25 January 2012 upholding a default surcharge which was issued for the period 10/11.
[2]The Appellant itself did not appear and was not represented notwithstanding the fact that the onus of proof was upon it to establish the grounds it was asserting for reasonable excuse. Having considered the matter the Tribunal decided, in the interests of justice, to proceed - it having satisfied itself that adequate notice had been provided to the Appellant both of the date of the Hearing and the nature of the Appeal. The Tribunal did, however, have regard to all of the correspondence and representations made by the Appellant as included in the trial bundle.
[3]The facts are relatively straightforward. The Appellant became registered as a trader with effect from the 3 December 2010. It appears that at that point there was a degree of confusion both as between HMRC and the Appellant. The Appellant was of the view that it's first return would not need to be filed until the 28 February 2011. However we were given a letter (undated) from the Appellant in which, as a result of a telephone conversation with HMRC, the Appellant had asked it for its return date to be changed from February 2011 to December 2010. We were also furnished with a copy of a telephone attendance note which indicated that HMRC and the Appellant had spoken again - a conversation in which HMRC indicated to the Appellant that the earliest possible return date available (given the 3 December registration date) was the end of January 2012.
[4]As a result of this dialogue HMRC appears to have operated to a filing date of the end of January but the Appellant operated to the filing date of the end of February. The default surcharges that result arose because that misunderstanding was perpetuated throughout the tax year in question and in particular in the period 10/11 in relation to which the default surcharge under appeal arises. In short both parties were operating to different filing dates or "stagger periods" for the submission of returns.
[5]The Appellant's case is quite simply put. From the correspondence it accepts that a clerical error arose but, as a consequence, argues that a reasonable excuse defence is available to it based on the facts of the case. In this...
To continue reading
Request your trial