First-tier Tribunal (Tax)

[2014] UKFTT 0138 (TC)

 

 

              TC03278

                                                                    

 

 

Appeal number: TC/2013/07285

 

VAT – LATE PAYMENT – APPELLANTS SAY HMRC HAD WRONG ADDRESS ON FILE AND SURCHARGE NOTICE FOR FIRST DEFAULT NOT PROPERLY ISSUED – NO EVIDENCE ADDRESS WRONG - APPEAL DISMISSED

 

 

FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL

TAX CHAMBER

 

 

	KLAMPFL KREATIV	Appellants
	- and -
	THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S	Respondents
	REVENUE & CUSTOMS

 

 

TRIBUNAL:	JUDGE  N A BAIRD

 

 

 

The Tribunal determined the appeal on 20 January 2014 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 10 July  2013 (with enclosures), and HMRC’s Submissions (with enclosures).

 

 

 

 

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2014

DECISION

 

 

1 The appellants appeal against the decision of HMRC to impose a surcharge of £473.58 for the periods 01/13 under the provisions of Section 59 of the VAT Act 1994. The return for that period was filed electronically, in time. The payment was due   on or before 7 March  2013 and was received by HMRC 6 days late on 13 March.

 

2. The return for the period 10/12 had been late. HMRC claim to have issued  a Surcharge Liability Notice but the appellants say they never received this. If they had they would have ensured that the return and the payment for 01/13 were submitted in time. They say that HMRC have consistently shown  an incorrect ‘Principal Place of Business Address’ and there is no indication that the Surcharge Liability Notice was sent to the correct address.

 

 3. The position of HMRC is that the obligation is on the appellants to submit their return and pay their VAT on time. When the return for 01/13 was received electronically an acknowledgment would have been issued reminding that any tax due would have to be paid and specifying the due date. So far as the address of the appellants is concerned, HMRC say that the appellants had  elected not to have their correspondence sent to them via an agent or a representative but to have it issued to them via HMRC’s Non-Established Taxable Person Unit (NETPU). The appellants had acknowledged  receipt of the 1/13 Surcharge Liability Notice Extension and there is therefore  no reason to suppose that they did not get that for 10/13. Their address has not changed since registering for VAT.

 

4. I have given careful consideration to the evidence before me. A reasonable excuse is normally an unexpected or unusual event, either unforeseeable or beyond the person’s control, which prevents him from complying with an obligation when he otherwise would have done. The matter has to be considered in the light of the actions of a reasonable prudent taxpayer exercising foresight and due diligence and having proper regard for his responsibilities under the Taxes Act. It is clear from a letter from the appellants’ agents dated 30 April 2013 that the agents did not understand the concept of an NETPU address or that their clients had registered under that arrangement. They refer to that address as HMRC’s ‘own Aberdeen Office’. There is other correspondence in the file sent to the appellants at the Aberdeen address including the Surcharge Notice for 01/13.HMRC have provided information on the system for issuing Surcharge Notices.  There was an issue about the appellants’ actual business address in Vienna but this was apparently raised by the Tribunal  because the wrong address was given on the appeal form by the agents.  HMRC say that the appropriate notice was issued in respect of the 10/12 period. The notice for 01/13 was sent to the Aberdeen address, the address on file. There is nothing to suggest that this was  the wrong address or indeed that HMRC ever had the wrong Principal Place of Business address.I find that the  VAT was paid late  and no reasonable excuse has been offered.  

 

5.  The appeal is dismissed.

 

6.This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009.   The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party.  The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice.

 

                                         

 

N A BAIRD

TRIBUNAL JUDGE

                                         

                                          RELEASE DATE: 29 January 2014