[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> McKinnon (t/a AMK Self Drive) v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 165 (TC) (05 March 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02581.html Cite as: [2013] UKFTT 165 (TC) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[2013] UKFTT 165 (TC)
TC02581
Appeal number: TC/12/07158
PAYE – Penalties for late payment – whether “reasonable excuse” or other basis for mitigation – No – whether penalties due – Yes – Appeal refused
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
ANDREW McKINNON t/a AMK SELF DRIVE |
Appellant |
|
|
|
|
- and - |
|
|
|
|
|
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S |
Respondents |
|
REVENUE & CUSTOMS |
|
TRIBUNAL: |
JUDGE KENNETH MURE, QC |
|
HELEN M DUNN, LLB |
Sitting in public at Wellington House, Glasgow on Friday 8 February 2013
Mr Andrew McKinnon, the Appellant
Ms E McIntyre (with Ms S McMullen), HMRC Officer, for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
DECISION
1. This Appeal relates to the imposition of penalties for late payment of PAYE for 2010/11. As revised these total £3,567.55, having excluded any liability for the first late payment and (following on the decision in Agar v HMRC [2011] UKFTT 773 (TC)) ignoring the last late payment as falling outwith the tax Year.
7. Finally, Ms McIntyre submitted, there was not a reasonable excuse in the whole circumstances which might excuse late payment, and, further, the decision in Hok Ltd [2012] UKUT 363 (TCC) laid down that this Tribunal has no discretion or power to mitigate penalties. Accordingly she invited us to dismiss the Appeal.
10. We have considerable sympathy for Mr McKinnon. The payments were only two or three days late, sometimes after a weekend, apart from the one payment, admittedly nine days late, during the August holiday period. It may be that Mr McKinnon did not receive the warning letter in May or the telephone call in December, but in any event, the responsibility for ensuring prompt payment rests with him in terms of the relevant legislation. Hok makes it clear that this Tribunal has no discretion, however deserving the circumstances, to mitigate or waive these penalties. The new Regulations were widely publicised and it is the responsibility of the individual taxpayer to familiarise himself with these. Moreover, we do not consider that the circumstances disclose a reasonable excuse. We discussed with Mr McKinnon the circumstances of late payment generally and whether particularly there might have been some involvement by a third party. However, no basis for an argument of reasonable excuse emerged.
11. For these reasons we dismiss the Appeal.
KENNETH MURE, QC