[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> M and L Stevens Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 304 (TC) (17 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02709.html Cite as: [2013] UKFTT 304 (TC) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[2013] UKFTT 304 (TC)
TC02709
Appeal number: TC/2012/5522
INCOME TAX – PENALTY FOR LATE FILING OF END OF YEAR PAYE RETURN – Whether the Appellant filed the return on time – No – Did the Appellant have a reasonable excuse for default – No – Appeal dismissed.
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
M and L STEVENS LIMITED |
Appellant |
|
|
|
|
- and - |
|
|
|
|
|
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S |
Respondents |
|
REVENUE & CUSTOMS |
|
TRIBUNAL: |
JUDGE MICHAEL TILDESLEY OBE |
|
|
|
|
The Tribunal determined the appeal on 14 March 2013 without a hearing under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 (default paper cases) having first read the Notice of Appeal dated 9 May 2012, HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 29 January 2013 and the Appellant’s reply to the statement of case dated 13 February 2013.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
DECISION
4. The Upper Tribunal in HMRC v Hok Ltd [2012] UKUT 363 (TCC) re-affirmed the First Tier Tribunal’s limited jurisdiction in respect of penalty appeals, and in particular emphasised that it had no statutory power to adjust a penalty on the grounds of fairness. At paragraph 35 the Upper Tribunal said:
“It is important to bear in mind how the First-tier Tribunal came into being. It was created by s 3(1) of the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007, “for the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on it under or by virtue of this Act or any other Act”. It follows that its jurisdiction is derived wholly from statute. As Mr Vallat correctly submitted, the statutory provision relevant here, namely TMA s 100B, permits the tribunal to set aside a penalty which has not in fact been incurred, or to correct a penalty which has been incurred but has been imposed in an incorrect amount, but it goes no further. In particular, neither that provision nor any other gives the tribunal discretion to adjust a penalty of the kind imposed in this case, because of a perception that it is unfair or for any similar reason. Pausing there, it is plain that the First-tier Tribunal has no statutory power to discharge, or adjust, a penalty because of a perception that it is unfair”.
7. The Appellant argued initially that the quantum of the penalty was unfair, particularly as it was months before HMRC made it aware of the non filing of the return. The Appellant relied on the FT Tribunal decision in Hok Limited which has subsequently been reversed by the Upper Tribunal. The Appellant’s reason for the late filing was due to a computer failure at its accountants. Also Mr Stevens, the Appellant’s director, telephoned the accountant’s office on more than one occasion and was unfortunately told by a junior assistant that the return had been submitted.