20041

SECURITY – late payment of one return followed by two returns with no payment – whether reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

	GEOFFREY DAVID SEAR	Appellant

	- and -

	THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S 
	REVENUE AND CUSTOMS	Respondents

			Tribunal:	DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)
					MOHAMMAD HOSSAIN FCA FCIB

Sitting in public in London on 12 March 2007

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Simon Chambers, Senior Officer of HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007

DECISION

1.	Mr Geoffrey David Sear appeals against a Notice of Requirement to give security of £42,470.27 (or £34,470.27 if he goes onto monthly returns) dated 6 July 2006.  The Appellant did not appear and was not represented.  Mr Simon Chambers appeared for Customs.
2.	We heard the appeal in the Appellant’s absence under rule 26(2) of the VAT Tribunals Rules 1986.
3.	We heard evidence from the officer who demanded the security, Miss C Bell.  Security was demanded because the period 09/05 return was paid 85 days late and no payment was made for the period 12/05 or 03/06 returns.  The security was on the usual basis of 6 months tax (half the tax on the last four returns) rounded down to £24,050 plus the arrears of tax of £18,420.27 (or 4 months tax plus the arrears if monthly returns).  If security had been demanded today the figure would be higher because no further returns have been made that would affect the calculation and the arrears are now higher, although some payments have been made.
4.	The Appellant’s grounds of appeal were that the decision was unfair and will lead to unnecessary hardship if not bankruptcy.  He also pointed out that payments were being made towards the VAT debt.
5.	We consider that in the light of the very late payment of the tax on the 09/05 return and the non-payment of the tax on two subsequent returns Customs were entirely reasonable in demanding security.  They took relevant factors into account and did not take into account factors which should not have been taken into account.  The calculation is on the usual basis.  We are afraid that hardship or possible bankruptcy are not matters that we can take into account.  The demand was properly made for the protection of the revenue.
6.	Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.  Since the Appellant did not appear he may apply to the tribunal centre within 14 days of the date of release of this decision for the appeal to be reinstated giving full reasons why he did not attend.  Mr Chambers undertook not to take any action in respect of the decision during that period.

JOHN F. AVERY JONES

CHAIRMAN
RELEASE DATE: 14  March 2007

LON/06/934