Lau v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 560 (TC) (22 August 2011)
Reliance on an accountant for filing a P35 return does not, in itself, amount to a reasonable excuse for late filing under s.118(2) of the Taxes Management Act 1970, especially where the task does not require specialist expertise and no evidence is provided that all reasonable efforts were made to file on time.
- Citation
- [2011] UKFTT 560
- Parties
- Appellant: Kalong Lau; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 22 August 2011
- Procedural Posture
- Appeal Against Penalty for Late Filing of P35 Employer’s Annual Return / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Determination on Papers
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed; penalty confirmed.
- Legal Topics
- Income Tax, Corporation Tax, Penalties, Reasonable Excuse, Late Filing
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Kalong Lau
Appellant
The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Respondents
Procedural Posture
Appeal Against Penalty for Late Filing of P35 Employer’s Annual Return / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Determination on Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for late filing of the P35 employer’s annual return under s.118(2) of the Taxes Management Act 1970
Ratio Decidendi
Reliance on an accountant for filing a P35 return does not, in itself, amount to a reasonable excuse for late filing under s.118(2) of the Taxes Management Act 1970, especially where the task does not require specialist expertise and no evidence is provided that all reasonable efforts were made to file on time.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed; penalty confirmed.
Orders
- The penalty of £400 for late filing of the P35 return is confirmed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment