[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Buxhall Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT V20340 (12 September 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2007/V20340.html Cite as: [2007] UKVAT V20340

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

20340

Value Added Tax – Default Surcharge – Error by taxpayer's accountants – Appeal Dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

BUXHALL LIMITED Appellant

and –

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE & CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: HOWARD M NOWLAN (Chairman)

SHEILA EDMONDSON FCA

Sitting in public in London on 5 September 2007

The Appellant was not present

Gloria Orimoloye of HMRC's Solicitors' Department on behalf of the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007


 


DECISION

1. This was a default surcharge appeal for the period 12.06. The default for this period followed several earlier defaults where the grounds advanced for demonstrating reasonable excuse (geared to flood damage of stocks and break-ins) had been rejected by this Tribunal.
2. The default for the period 12.06 was occasioned by the failure of the Appellant's accountants to file the Appellant's VAT return on line. In a letter of 14 March 2007, the Accountants, Lawrence Grant, explained that they alone had been instructed and authorised to file the return on line and that they had "failed to do so". No explanation of that failure was given but it was suggested that the feature that the blame fell on the accountants and not the Appellant itself would somehow constitute a reasonable excuse for the default. In this regard the accountants made it clear that the Appellant had ensured that the moneys to pay the VAT had been placed into the Appellant's bank account well in advance of the due date for payment; and that the accountants' neglect was itself brought to light by the Appellant asking the accountants why its bank balance had not been reduced at the point that it expected the VAT to be paid.
3. As a legal matter it is clear that fault on the part of the Appellant's delegates cannot provide a reasonable excuse to eliminate the liability for surcharge, unless occasioned by some particular and generally unexpected calamity. In this case the accountant's statement that they simply failed to deal with the return demonstrated nothing that can constitute such a circumstance.
4. There was marshalled for the appeal a very substantial amount of paper-work (the relevance of which largely escaped us) and the Appellant's accountants, who it was expected would address the Tribunal, stated on the telephone (when asked by the Tribunal staff, after the time set for the commencement of the hearing, why no-one had appeared to advance the Appellant's case) that they were not attending because they realised that their case was hopeless. Whilst we agree with that summary, we consider that the failure to withdraw the appeal or to indicate either to the Tribunal or the Respondents that the Appellant was effectively abandoning its appeal on a day when travel was anyway aggravated by a Tube strike justifies us in awarding the Respondents' their costs of the appeal. We naturally understand that it will be the Appellant and not its accountants who will be responsible for those costs and we simply observe that the issue, as between the Appellant and its accountants, of who should ultimately fund those costs, and indeed the cost of the default surcharge, is not for us.
5. The Appeal is dismissed, with costs.

HOWARD M NOWLAN

CHAIRMAN

RELEASED: 12 September 2007

LON/2007/0719