Pracyva Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Pracyva Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Section 108 FA 2009 did not apply because Pracyva’s request for deferral was made after the due date for payment for period 9/21. Pracyva’s cashflow difficulties, health and family issues, and late approach to HMRC did not amount to a reasonable excuse for late payment under section 59(7) VATA.

Parties
Appellant: Pracyva Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
11 October 2024
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed as regards VAT period 9/21; no decision required for period 12/21 as surcharge was cancelled.
Legal Topics
VAT Default Surcharge, Section 108 Finance Act 2009, Reasonable Excuse, Time to Pay Arrangements
Tax Law VAT Default Surcharge Section 108 Finance Act 2009 Reasonable Excuse Time to Pay Arrangements

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pracyva Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 108 Finance Act 2009 relieves the default surcharge for VAT period 9/21
  2. 2 Whether Pracyva Ltd had a reasonable excuse under section 59(7) VATA for late VAT payment

Ratio Decidendi

Section 108 FA 2009 did not apply because Pracyva’s request for deferral was made after the due date for payment for period 9/21. Pracyva’s cashflow difficulties, health and family issues, and late approach to HMRC did not amount to a reasonable excuse for late payment under section 59(7) VATA.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed as regards VAT period 9/21; no decision required for period 12/21 as surcharge was cancelled.