20337
LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE				Reference No: LON/2007/651

								Copy sent to:

								Appellant/Applicant

								Respondents

	TEAMSPIRIT HOLDINGS LIMITED	Appellant

	- and -

	THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS	 Respondents

	Tribunal: NICHOLAS ALEKSANDER (Chairman)
				     TYM MARSH			      

	Sitting in public in London on 27 June 2007

	DIRECTION
under Rule 30(8)

THIS APPEAL against a decision of the Respondents with respect to a Default Surcharge being a reasonable excuse appeal as defined by Rule 2 of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 coming on for hearing today

AND UPON HEARING Alistair Britton, a director of the Appellant, for the Appellant and Gloria Orimoloye, Advocate, of the Solicitors Office of HM Revenue & Customs for the Respondents

AND THIS TRIBUNAL having heard this appeal under Rule 26(2) and having announced its decision

AND THE  parties present at the hearing or by their said representatives stating pursuant to Rule 30(8) of the Value Added Tax Tribunal Rules 1986  that they do not require the said decision to be recorded in a written document in accordance with Rules 30(1)

THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT  the Appellants attempted to pay the VAT due in respect of the return for the period September 2006 to December 2006 on 5 January 2007 via the CHAPS system.  The due date by which payment had to reach the Respondents for this return was 31 December 2006, but was extended by seven days (in accordance with the statement on the reverse of the VAT return) in the case of electronic payments until 7 January 2007 (but as this was a Sunday the payment would have to reach the Respondents’ account on 5 January 2007.  The electronic systems used by the Appellant’s bank would not allow the full payment to be processed, notwithstanding that it was within the Appellant’s CHAPS ceiling and overdraft facility, and only permitted a payment of £26,345.5 to be made.  The balance was paid on the next business day, being Monday 8 January 2007.  The Tribunal considers that the default was due to failures by the Appellant’s bank.  Accordingly the Appellants had a reasonable excuse for their default

AND THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT this appeal is allowed

AND that there is to be no direction as to costs

NICHOLAS ALEKSANDER
	Chairman
	Release Date: 11 September 2007

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007