Barett v Revenue & Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Sub-contractors in the construction industry) [2015] UKFTT 329 (TC) (07 July 2015)

Barett v Revenue & Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : Sub-contractors in the construction industry) [2015] UKFTT 329 (TC) (07 July 2015)

The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to reduce the regulation 13 determination to nil on the basis of 'double recovery' as this is a public law argument outside its statutory remit. The penalties were correctly determined under the law, and the tribunal could not consider proportionality. Mr Barrett did not...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 329
Parties
Appellant: Nigel Barrett; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 July 2015
Procedural Posture
Income Tax/corporation Tax Appeal (construction Industry Scheme) / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction Industry Scheme (cis), Income Tax, Penalties for Late Returns, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Reasonable Excuse, Reliance on Professional Advice
Tax Law Administrative Law Construction Industry Scheme (cis) Income Tax Penalties for Late Returns Jurisdiction of Tribunal Reasonable Excuse Reliance on Professional Advice

Source-derived case record

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nigel Barrett

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Income Tax/corporation Tax Appeal (construction Industry Scheme) / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amounts determined under regulation 13 in relation to payments to Mr Luke are excessive and should be reduced to nil due to 'double recovery' (Ground A)
  2. 2 Whether HMRC failed to exercise discretion under s 100(1) TMA when determining penalties (Ground B)
  3. 3 Whether Mr Barrett had a reasonable excuse for compliance failures, such that no penalties are due (Ground C)

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that it had no jurisdiction to reduce the regulation 13 determination to nil on the basis of 'double recovery' as this is a public law argument outside its statutory remit. The penalties were correctly determined under the law, and the tribunal could not consider proportionality. Mr Barrett did not have a reasonable excuse as he failed to make adequate enquiries about his CIS obligations and did not seek advice from his accountant on this specific issue. The authorisation process for penalty determinations was lawful under the relevant Board’s Orders.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal against the regulation 13 determination is dismissed; the amount determined stands.
  • The appeal against the penalties is dismissed; the penalties as determined stand, subject to HMRC's open offer to mitigate penalties under s 102 TMA to £3,196.