Cooper v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 112 (TC) (10 February 2011)

Cooper v Revenue & Customs [2011] UKFTT 112 (TC) (10 February 2011)

The appellant failed to show a reasonable excuse for late payment, and the penalty was not disproportionate or plainly unfair in the circumstances. The statutory conditions for the surcharge were met, and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify mitigation or setting aside the penalty.

Citation
[2011] UKFTT 112 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Mr Simon Cooper; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Income Tax Surcharge Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Income Tax, Late Payment Surcharge, Reasonable Excuse, Proportionality of Penalty, Human Rights
Tax Law Income Tax Late Payment Surcharge Reasonable Excuse Proportionality of Penalty Human Rights

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mr Simon Cooper

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax Surcharge Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for late payment of tax
  2. 2 Whether the penalty imposed was disproportionate or contrary to human rights

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to show a reasonable excuse for late payment, and the penalty was not disproportionate or plainly unfair in the circumstances. The statutory conditions for the surcharge were met, and there were no exceptional circumstances to justify mitigation or setting aside the penalty.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed as no reasonable excuse within the meaning of the legislation has been shown and the Human Rights argument has been rejected.