[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 >> St Honore Mailles (Scotland) Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18901 (15 December 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18901.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18901

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

18901

Submission of EC Sales List – failure timeously to submit – whether reasonable excuse – appeal dismissed.

EDINBURGH TRIBUNAL CENTRE

ST HONORE MAILLES (SCOTLAND) LTD Appellants

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: (Chairman): T Gordon Coutts, QC

Sitting in Edinburgh on Monday 13 December 2004

for the Appellants Mr Edward Robertson

for the Respondents Mr A McCue

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004.


 


DECISION

The taxpayer company was represented by Mr Robertson, a Chartered Accountant who was responsible as Director and Secretary for the affairs of the Company. He retired from practice and he said, in May 2001 sold his business which had been conducted from 5 O'Connell Street in Hawick.. Thereafter another firm of accountants operated from those premises. The mail addressed to Mr Robertson was accepted by that firm and collected by him. That mail included communications in relation to the taxpayer company for whom returns were submitted for a time. However the return and the appropriate EC Sales List for the period 02/01 was not submitted.

The Company then became liable for a penalty at the rate of £5 per day to the maximum of £500 for that failure in terms of Section 66(6) of the VAT Act 1994, the provisions of Schedule 11 para 2(3) of that Act and Regulation 22 of the VAT General Regulations 1995.

Section 66 of the said Act does not provide for any mitigation of the penalty for any extenuating circumstances falling short of a reasonable excuse as statutorily defined.

Mr Robertson as an accountant was, of course, aware of VAT regimes and that returns required to be submitted on time. He accepted that. He discoursed upon the circumstances surrounding the Company and its failure and lack of funds. None of these considerations amount to a reasonable excuse. Further he indicated that because of his age he felt less able to deal with such matters.

He spoke at length about a muddle in relation to the address at which the Company could be communicated. That did not appear to the Tribunal to be relevant in that it is for the taxpayer to intimate in proper form to the Commissioners any change of address from the registered address. It appears that this was never formally done and was certainly not done at or before the time of the missing return in question. There was some discussion about notices of penalty not having been received or having been sent to the old address. The Tribunal considered that to be neither here nor there. The penalty was incurred because of the failure to submit the return and irrespective of communications thereafter it is that failure with which the Tribunal is concerned to ascertain whether there is a statutory reasonable excuse.

There was no reasonable excuse provided in the above circumstances and the appeal is accordingly dismissed.

T GORDON COUTTS, QC

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE: 15 DECEMBER 2004

EDN/004/88