BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback] | ||
First-tier Tribunal (Tax) |
||
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> Watson v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 686 (TC) (07 November 2012) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2012/TC02357.html Cite as: [2012] UKFTT 686 (TC) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[2012] UKFTT 686 (TC)
TC02357
Appeal number: TC/2011/4221
INCOME TAX – late filing penalties – reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed – section 93 Taxes Management Act 1970
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
ANDREW WATSON |
Appellant |
|
|
|
|
- and - |
|
|
|
|
|
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S |
Respondents |
|
REVENUE & CUSTOMS |
|
TRIBUNAL: |
JUDGE NICHOLAS ALEKSANDER |
|
|
The Tribunal determined the appeal on 16 October 2012 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 20 May 2011 (with enclosures), HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 30 June 2011 (with enclosures), the Appellant’s Reply dated 25 July 2011 (with enclosures), the Appellant’s answers dated 16 March 2012 to the Tribunal’s questions dated 7 March 2012, and HMRC’s answers dated 22 March 2012 to the Tribunal’s questions dated 7 March 2012.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2012
DECISION
2. I find the background facts to be as follows.
11. On 20 May 2011 Mr Watson appealed to this Tribunal against the outstanding penalties.
Q1. Is your contention in relation to each year that you did not receive the returns? If not, please state for which years you wish to contend that you did not receive the returns?
A1. When I received any enquires From the HMRC I always made sure that they were completed and returned by the due date.
Q2. What was your address at each of the relevant times, i.e. April 2007 for the 2006/7 return, April 2008 for the 2007/8 return and April 2010 for the year 2009/10?
A2. April 2007 for the 2006/7 return. During this time I moved from my home at [….] Motherwell to a temporary address in Wishaw. I do not remember the postal address.
April 2008 for the 2007/8 return. I moved from Wishaw to […] Glasgow. I then left the UK and settled in the USA when I got married on the 31st. May 2007.
April 2010 for the year 2009/10. Was where I settled in Phoenix USA
Q3. When and how did you notify HMRC of any address change over the whole period including the last time you notified them of your address before April 2007?
A3. I have always notified the Tax office of my change of address. Had I not been in constant contact with them HOW would they have my address here in the USA????
Q4. What post redirection arrangements did you put in place if you changed addresses over the period April 2006 to May 2010?
A4. It has always been my policy to use the Postal service mail forwarding service for 3 months after moving house.
17. In the circumstances, the only basis for cancelling the penalties are:
(1) Mr Watson has a reasonable excuse for his failure to file. The fact that Mr Watson’s income is low, and that he may not have any liability to pay UK tax is not such a reasonable excuse. Indeed it is only by filing a tax return that Mr Watson can show how low his income is, and therefore that he may not have a UK tax liability. Mr Watson has not given any other reason as to why he has failed to file the outstanding tax returns. I therefore find that he has no reasonable excuse for failing to file a tax return by the due date.
(2) Mr Watson has no UK taxable income. If Mr Watson files his outstanding tax returns with HMRC, and these show that he has no UK taxable income or gains in excess of his personal allowances, then his penalties will be reduced to nil. This is because the penalties for the years in question cannot exceed his UK income tax liability, and if his tax liability in each of the relevant years is nil, then his penalties will be reduced to nil. In this context I note that although Mr Watson filed his tax return for 2008/9 late, the penalties for late filing were cancelled as the tax due in respect of the tax year in question was nil.
18. I therefore dismiss the appeal.