Wright v Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 14 (TC) (20 December 2010)

Wright v Revenue and Customs [2011] UKFTT 14 (TC) (20 December 2010)

The appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to pay tax on time. Cash flow difficulties arose from his own lack of foresight and due diligence, and he failed to seek timely advice or arrange payment with HMRC. The Tribunal found the appellant was not misled by the accountant and that the consequences of withdrawal of gross payment status do not constitute a reasonable excuse.

Citation
[2011] UKFTT 14
Parties
Appellant: Paul Wright; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 December 2010
Procedural Posture
Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction Industry Scheme, Gross Payment Status, Compliance Test, Reasonable Excuse, Income Tax Self Assessment

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Wright

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Final Decision

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for failing to meet the compliance test for gross payment status under the Construction Industry Scheme

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for failing to pay tax on time. Cash flow difficulties arose from his own lack of foresight and due diligence, and he failed to seek timely advice or arrange payment with HMRC. The Tribunal found the appellant was not misled by the accountant and that the consequences of withdrawal of gross payment status do not constitute a reasonable excuse.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Decision withdrawing gross payment status from the appellant is upheld.