Giles v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 109 (TC) (18 May 2009)

Giles v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 109 (TC) (18 May 2009)

The Appellant's admitted dishonesty in relation to the VAT returns rendered him personally liable for the penalty under s.61 VATA, regardless of whether other directors had knowledge of the irregularities. The Tribunal found the Appellant's evidence less credible than that of HMRC and the other directors, and held that the penalty of £7,274 was proportionate and properly recoverable from the Appellant.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 109
Parties
Appellant: Gary Giles; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
18 May 2009
Procedural Posture
Tax Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Penalties, Dishonest Evasion, Director Liability, Apportionment of Penalty
Tax Law VAT Penalties Dishonest Evasion Director Liability Apportionment 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gary Giles

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the penalty for dishonest evasion of VAT should be wholly attributed to the Appellant under s.61 VATA
  2. 2 Whether other directors had knowledge of or participated in the dishonest conduct
  3. 3 Whether procedural requirements for notice under s.61 VATA were met

Ratio Decidendi

The Appellant's admitted dishonesty in relation to the VAT returns rendered him personally liable for the penalty under s.61 VATA, regardless of whether other directors had knowledge of the irregularities. The Tribunal found the Appellant's evidence less credible than that of HMRC and the other directors, and held that the penalty of £7,274 was proportionate and properly recoverable from the Appellant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appellant to pay HMRC £7,274 penalty
  • Appellant to pay HMRC £750 towards costs within 42 days