Bosher v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 631 (TC) (08 October 2012)

Bosher v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 631 (TC) (08 October 2012)

Mr Bosher failed to file CIS returns on time for multiple periods and had no reasonable excuse for the late filings. The Tribunal found his evidence not credible, particularly regarding the alleged posting of returns and non-receipt of penalty notices. The penalty notices were properly served to the address on record. The penalties, while significant, were within the statutory framework and did not breach Mr Bosher’s human rights, as the regime is proportionate and within the state's margin of appreciation. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reflecting HMRC's discretionary reduction of penalties under s102 TMA 1970.

Citation
[2012] UKFTT 631 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Anthony Bosher; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 October 2012
Procedural Posture
Tax Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision After Oral Hearing
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
Construction Industry Scheme (cis), Late Filing Penalties, Reasonable Excuse, Proportionality of Penalties, Human Rights Act 1998, Article 6 ECHR, Article 1 Protocol 1 ECHR
Tax Law Human Rights Law Construction Industry Scheme (cis) Late Filing Penalties Reasonable Excuse Proportionality of Penalties Human Rights Act 1998 Article 6 ECHR +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anthony Bosher

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision After Oral Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Mr Bosher filed CIS returns late and had a reasonable excuse
  2. 2 Whether penalty notices were properly served
  3. 3 Whether the penalties imposed were disproportionate or breached human rights

Ratio Decidendi

Mr Bosher failed to file CIS returns on time for multiple periods and had no reasonable excuse for the late filings. The Tribunal found his evidence not credible, particularly regarding the alleged posting of returns and non-receipt of penalty notices. The penalty notices were properly served to the address on record. The penalties, while significant, were within the statutory framework and did not breach Mr Bosher’s human rights, as the regime is proportionate and within the state's margin of appreciation. However, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part, reflecting HMRC's discretionary reduction of penalties under s102 TMA 1970.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Penalties for periods after 5 June 2009 cancelled as agreed by HMRC
  • Penalties reduced from £54,100 to £14,600 in accordance with HMRC's discretionary offer under s102 TMA 1970