[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> Harris v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 526 (TC) (29 July 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02914.html Cite as: [2013] UKFTT 526 (TC) |
[New search] [Context] [View without highlighting] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[2013] UKFTT 526 (TC)
TC02914
Appeal number: TC/2012/00325
INCOME TAX: Employers Annual Return (forms P35 and P14); failure to file on time; problems with registering for electronic filing; tribunal’s right to set penalty aside on grounds of “fairness”; jurisdiction of the tribunal.
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
ROY HARRIS |
Appellant |
|
|
|
|
- and - |
|
|
|
|
|
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S |
Respondents |
|
REVENUE & CUSTOMS |
|
TRIBUNAL: |
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER HACKING |
The Tribunal determined the appeal on 11 April 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 17 December 2011 together with associated correspondence from the Appellant’s agent Rea Associates. It has also noted a further Notice of Appeal dated 22 February 2013 and in particular the Grounds of Appeal as therein stated. The Tribunal has read HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 28 January 2013 (with enclosures).
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
DECISION
9. It is clear that the Appellant considers that the strict application of the penalty regime is unfair in the circumstances of this appeal. The question of whether “fairness” in this more general sense is a matter which the Tribunal can take into account in its decision making is one which arose in the recently decided case of HMRC and HOK Limited [2012]UKUT 363 (TCC). It was decided in that case that the jurisdiction of the First-tier Tax Tribunal does not extend to discharging a penalty on the grounds of fairness. Its powers are limited to the legislation which confers those powers and accordingly where no “reasonable excuse” for the delay can be made out the penalty will be upheld.
10. The appeal was stayed for some time pending the decision in the case of HOK referred to above. However it has to be said that in the particular circumstances of this appeal HOK is perhaps of less relevance than the fact that the Appellant at no stage explained exactly what problems he or his agent had with the registration and filing process which caused such a considerable delay. Had there been evidence before the Tribunal that the problems experienced were due to difficulties with the Revenue’s systems and that despite every effort to ensure that the deadline was met it could not be achieved the Tribunal would have been prepared to consider this as a reasonable excuse. The fact that others appear to have been able to access the system and file on time suggests that this is unlikely to have been the problem.
12. For the above reasons the penalty must be confirmed and the appeal cannot be allowed.