V19128 Redwood Engineering Recruitment Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT V19128 (16 June 2005)


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!



BAILII [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 >> Redwood Engineering Recruitment Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT V19128 (16 June 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19128.html
Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19128

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


     
    19128

    LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE Reference No: LON/2005/191

    Copy sent to:

    Appellant/Applicant

    Respondents

    REDWOOD ENGINEERING RECRUITMENT LTD Appellant

    - and -

    HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

    Tribunal: STEPHEN OLIVER QC (Chairman)

    SHAWAR SADEQUE

    KEMAL HOSSEIN FCA

    Sitting in public in London on 1 June 2005

    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 as amended coming on for hearing this day

    AND UPON HEARING Simon Bird FCA For the Appellant and Philip Webb for the Respondents

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

    THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT the Appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for the late payment: in particular it is not an excuse to say that had the company known it was in the default surcharge regime it would have paid on time. It should have known that. The problem arose because the financial officer's predecessor had not handed over to her properly

    AND THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT this appeal is DISMISSED

    AND that there is to be no direction as to costs

    STEPHEN OLIVER QC

    Chairman

    Release Date: 16 June 2005

    © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19128.html