Dennison Trailers Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - PENALTIES : Default surcharge) [2016] UKFTT 540 (TC) (02 August 2016)

Dennison Trailers Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT - PENALTIES : Default surcharge) [2016] UKFTT 540 (TC) (02 August 2016)

The appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for the late payment in period 06/14 because the information provided by HMRC was clear and specific, and the appellant could not reasonably rely on more general or online information in the face of direct communication. The penalty for the one-day late payment in period 03/15 was not disproportionate, as the amount and circumstances did not meet the threshold for exceptionality established in case law.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 540 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Dennison Trailers Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 August 2016
Procedural Posture
VAT PENALTIES : Default Surcharge / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Default Surcharge, Reasonable Excuse, Proportionality of Penalty
Tax Law VAT Default Surcharge Reasonable Excuse Proportionality of Penalty

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 3 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dennison Trailers Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT PENALTIES : Default Surcharge / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for late payment of VAT for period 06/14, thereby negating the default surcharge for period 03/15
  2. 2 Whether the default surcharge penalty for period 03/15 was disproportionate

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for the late payment in period 06/14 because the information provided by HMRC was clear and specific, and the appellant could not reasonably rely on more general or online information in the face of direct communication. The penalty for the one-day late payment in period 03/15 was not disproportionate, as the amount and circumstances did not meet the threshold for exceptionality established in case law.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed