Candy v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 146 (TC) (13 February 2013)

Candy v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 146 (TC) (13 February 2013)

The Tribunal found no clear evidence that the Appellant acted dishonestly. The failure to register for VAT was due to administrative incompetence and lack of knowledge, not an intention to evade tax. The Respondents did not discharge the burden of proving dishonesty to the required standard. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the Appellant is set aside.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 146 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Glenda Candy; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
13 February 2013
Procedural Posture
VAT Civil Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
VAT Registration, Civil Evasion Penalty, Director Liability, Dishonesty, Apportionment of Penalty
Tax Law VAT Registration Civil Evasion Penalty Director Liability Dishonesty 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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glenda Candy

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Civil Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Appellant acted dishonestly in failing to register the company for VAT when required
  2. 2 Whether the civil evasion penalty under Section 60 VATA 1994 can be apportioned to the Appellant under Section 61 VATA 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found no clear evidence that the Appellant acted dishonestly. The failure to register for VAT was due to administrative incompetence and lack of knowledge, not an intention to evade tax. The Respondents did not discharge the burden of proving dishonesty to the required standard. Therefore, the penalty imposed on the Appellant is set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The penalty imposed on the Appellant is set aside.