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) >> Itchen Sash Window Renovation Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 308 (TC) (17 May 2013) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2013/TC02713.html Cite as: [2013] UKFTT 308 (TC) |
[New search] [Printable PDF version] [Help]
[2013] UKFTT 308 (TC)
TC02713
Appeal number: TC/2012/05660
PAYE – late filing of P35 Returns – Appellant’s “lack of knowledge” – reasonable excuse – proportionality – appeal dismissed
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
ITCHEN SASH WINDOW RENOVATION LTD |
Appellant |
|
|
|
|
- and - |
|
|
|
|
|
THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S |
Respondents |
|
REVENUE & CUSTOMS |
|
TRIBUNAL: |
JUDGE LADY JUDITH MITTING |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Tribunal determined the appeal on 3 April 2013 without a hearing under the provisions of Rule 26 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chambers) Rules 2009 (default paper cases) having first read the Notice of Appeal dated 9 May 2012 (with enclosures) and HMRC’s Statement of Case submitted on 4 February 2013.
© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2013
DECISION
2. By letter dated 13 March 2012, the Appellant sought a review of the penalties pleading that:
(i) it had not been able to file the returns due to lack of knowledge and an inability to understand the HMRC Guidance;
(ii) since filing the returns the company now has a bookkeeper in place and the returns are being filed on time; and
(iii) the penalties are disproportionate to the error made.
In its notice of appeal to the Tribunal, the company merely stated as its grounds for appeal that it was wrong to penalise a small company £2,400 for not filing two P35 returns and in any event the amount was disproportionate as £2,400 was more than what the company paid to one employee per month. The Appellant did not respond to the statement of case.