Thompson Heating (2000) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : failure to make returns) [2016] UKFTT 166 (TC) (08 March 2016)

Thompson Heating (2000) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (INCOME TAX/CORPORATION TAX : failure to make returns) [2016] UKFTT 166 (TC) (08 March 2016)

The appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with CIS return obligations, as reliance on Ms Murphy was not shown to be reasonable or accompanied by reasonable care. Penalties imposed under Schedule 55 FA 2009 were not disproportionate given the statutory regime and the duration of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 166
Parties
Appellant: Thompson Heating (2000) Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 March 2016
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Construction Industry Scheme, Failure to Make Returns, Penalties, Reasonable Excuse, Proportionality, Special Circumstances
Tax Law Administrative Law Construction Industry Scheme Failure to Make Returns Penalties Reasonable Excuse Proportionality Special Circumstances

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 3 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 12
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thompson Heating (2000) Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had a reasonable excuse for failing to make CIS returns
  2. 2 Whether penalties imposed were disproportionate
  3. 3 Whether special circumstances justified reduction of penalties

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to demonstrate a reasonable excuse for non-compliance with CIS return obligations, as reliance on Ms Murphy was not shown to be reasonable or accompanied by reasonable care. Penalties imposed under Schedule 55 FA 2009 were not disproportionate given the statutory regime and the duration of defaults. No special circumstances justified reduction of penalties, and HMRC’s decision was not flawed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Penalties confirmed as determined by HMRC