Tag Archives: reasonable excuse

Constable VAT Focus 28 March 2019

28th March 2019

HMRC NEWS

Trading With the EU if the UK Leaves Without a Deal

HMRC has updated its guidance on leaving the EU in particular to reflect the fact that there is to be an extension to arrangements already announced regarding the use of Transitional Simplified Procedures (TSP), which will make importing goods easier.

Impact Assessment for VAT and Services if the UK Leaves Without a Deal

HMRC has released an impact assessment on the effect on businesses of amendments to existing VAT legislation and the introduction of transitional provisions for the supply of services between the UK and the EU.

VAT Treatment of Pension Fund Management

The policy of allowing insurers to treat all pension fund management services as exempt from VAT under the insurance exemption is to be discontinued. This policy change applies from 1 April 2019.

CASE UPDATE

CJEU

1. Exemption for Letting Immovable Property

This case concerned the interpretation and applicability of the VAT exemption for the letting or leasing of immovable property. The Portuguese tax authorities assessed Mr. Mesquita for VAT on contracts relating to the transfer of the use of vineyards for agricultural purposes for a period of one year. These transactions had been treated as exempt from VAT.

The question before the Court was whether the exemption for letting immovable property related to this contract.

The Court considered that the purpose of the EU law conferring the exemption on certain transactions was owing to the fact that the leasing of immovable property is normally a relatively passive activity which does not generate a large amount of income.

Where services are supplied along with the immovable property in a single transaction, such as supervision or maintenance, then the whole transaction is subject to VAT. However, the Court found that there were no services provided with the vineyards so the exemption could be applicable.

Constable Comment: The contract in the main Portuguese proceedings led to what the tax authorities believed to be a transfer of assets thus creating a taxable supply. The Court held that even if assets are transferred in this type of contract, they are ancillary to the main supply and the exemption still applies to the whole contract value.

Supreme Court

2. Education Exemption: Meaning of “eligible body”

This appeal concerned the criteria to be applied when determining if a particular body is eligible for the purposes of the VAT exemption afforded to certain bodies providing education to students.

The appellant, SEL, the English subsidiary of a Dutch company, contended that its supplies of UK education were exempt from VAT as it was a college of Middlesex University (MU). It appealed against assessments to VAT raised by HMRC. The appeal was allowed in the First Tier Tax Tribunal but it was escalated by HMRC and eventually ascended to the Supreme Court.

MU is a UK university and as such benefits from the exemption from VAT. This exemption is, under UK law, extended to “… a university and any college, school or hall of a university”. The Court, therefore, gave some consideration to what constituted a college of a university and observed that the “integration test” employed initially by the First Tier Tribunal was correct. The following five factors must be considered in arriving at a conclusion as to whether a particular undertaking can be considered a college of a university:

Whether they have a common understanding that the body is a college of the university
Whether the body can enrol students as students of the university
Whether those students are generally treated as students of the university
Whether the body provides courses of study which are approved by the university
Whether the body can present its students for examination for a degree from the university

In examining whether or not these criteria applied to SEL and its arrangements with MU, the Court concluded that the exemption did apply to SEL which had been referring students for degrees from MU since the beginning of their arrangement in the 1980s. It was found that there is no need for there to be a constitutional association with a university in order to be a college of that university.

Constable Comment: The criteria laid down in this instance for determining whether or not a body is eligible are not intended to be definitive and the Court observed that, in each instance, regard must be had to the individual facts of each arrangement between a university and an associated body.

Court of Appeal

3. Deductibility of VAT on Criminal Defence Costs

This case concerned whether or not input VAT incurred by a company in defending its director was deductible by that company as input tax. Mr. Ranson left a company, CSP, and set up his own rival firm in the same area, taking three employees with him. It was alleged by CSP that he had breached his fiduciary duties and also that he had misused a contact list from CSP for establishing his own business. CSP sought an account of profits earned by Mr. Ranson as a result of his breach of duty and sought to recover funds from Praesto.

In defending against these claims, Mr. Ranson instructed solicitors who were successful in his defence. The issue arose as a result of the solicitors addressing one invoice to Praesto and a further eight to Mr. Ranson individually. HMRC did not dispute the deductibility of the input VAT in relation to the invoice addressed to the firm but disputed the others as a result of the addressee.

VAT incurred is deductible so far as it has a “direct and immediate” link with the company’s taxable supplies. However where the legal costs form a part of the cost components of the company’s supplies it is also accepted that they have a direct link with the company’s economic activity as a whole.

HMRC placed a lot of emphasis on the fact that the invoices being disputed were addressed to Mr Ranson. Mr Ranson argued that Praesto were party to the proceedings in all but name and there was a direct benefit to the company in defending him. The economic reality of the situation was the solicitors were defending both Mr Ranson and Praesto.

The Court agreed with Mr Ranson that there was a direct benefit to Praesto in defending claims against him as if the claims had succeeded against Mr Ranson, CSP would have sought to recover profits made by Praesto. It was concluded that the VAT incurred by Praesto in mounting a defence against the allegations of CSP was, indeed, deductible.

Constable Comment: This is an interesting topic as, more often than not, the actual receipts and contracts are looked through to the economic reality of the supply. Whilst this appeal was allowed, one judge dissented, believing the fact that the invoices were addressed to Mr Ranson personally to be fatal to the appeal. This type of case will always need to be considered carefully, it is prudent to seek professional advice in relation to input VAT recovery in this scenario.

4. Default Surcharge: Reasonable Excuse

This appeal against a default surcharge turned on whether or not the applicant had a reasonable excuse for late payment. The appellant argued that he was unable to log in to the online gateway necessary for making VAT payments.

Mr Farrell received a notice of liability to surcharge which required payment by 7 May 2017. He was unable to log in to the Gateway using the information he previously saved in his computer. When he contacted the webchat he was told that he needed to speak to technical support. Technical support informed Mr Farrell that they could not deal with his enquiry until after 8 May 2017; after the due date for payment of the surcharge.

On the 8 May he spoke to the technical support team and was told that he had been using an incorrect User ID, a new one was sent to him but it turned out to be the first ID he was given before having it changed by HMRC when the Commissioners updated the system. Based on the changing of his logon details, he contended that he was not to blame for missing the payment date.

HMRC denied that his logon details had ever been changed and said there was no record of the webchat which Mr Farrell claimed to have had. Mr Farrell had clear evidence that this was not the case in the form of a saved conversation with Alexander form HMRC’s webchat and his “Browser Password Recovery Report”. This showed that his ID had indeed been changed when HMRC updated their system and that it had changed back to the original.

HMRC sought to argue that Mr Farrell had been using an incorrect ID number and therefore that he was responsible and did not have a reasonable excuse.

The Court held that Mr Farrell made reasonable efforts to pay the VAT due and that it was not clear why HMRC did not have the facilities to deal with Mr Farrell’s enquiry. The appeal was allowed; there was a reasonable excuse.

Constable Comment: This case demonstrated that HMRC do make mistakes when dealing with the taxpayers. It is a useful reminder that it is always prudent to maintain your own records of conversations with HMRC officers in order to evidence advice given or any mistakes made on HMRC’s behalf. We would recommend obtaining an officer name and a “call reference number” when speaking with HMRC.

Constable VAT Focus 14 February 2019

14th February 2019

HMRC NEWS

Check When a Business Must Follow the Rules for Making Tax Digital for VAT

Find out if and when you (or your clients) need to follow the rules for Making Tax Digital for VAT.

Use Software to Submit Your VAT Returns

If you submit VAT returns as a sole trader, limited company, partnership or as part of a VAT group, you may be eligible to join the Making Tax Digital Pilot for VAT.

Making Tax Digital for VAT as an Agent

Follow these steps if you are an agent and you want to submit VAT returns for your clients digitally.

CONSTABLE VAT NEWS

We have an upcoming Breakfast on 27^th February where we will discuss the impact of Brexit on VAT. Please book yourself a spot as food will be provided for those with reserved spaces. For details, please see here.

The CIOT have released a useful illustration of when businesses must register for the Making Tax Digital pilot for VAT. Our analysis can be found here.

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

1. Evidence in Criminal Prosecutions

This case concerned the EU law around the collection of VAT as well as the general EU principle of effectiveness. The main case focusses on a Bulgarian VAT offence but the questions before the CJEU in this instance concerned whether EU law must be interpreted as precluding a national court from applying a national provision excluding evidence which was obtained illegally.

Petar Dzivev and others were charged with having committed fraud in Bulgaria and sought to profit by not paying over tax owed to the Bulgarian tax authorities. A Bulgarian Court ordered that telecommunications between Mr. Dzivev and others involved should be intercepted.

It is common ground that the Court which authorised the interception did not have the necessary jurisdiction to do so, therefore the interceptions were not in accordance with the law of the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights.

The CJEU held that in cases such as this, EU law cannot require a national court to disapply a procedural rule preventing the state’s reliance on illegally obtained evidence. It was observed that even in situations where only this type of evidence is capable of proving that the offences were committed, EU law still may not prevent a national court from excluding evidence obtained illegally.

Constable Comment: In this instance the right to privacy given to individuals under the Charter of Fundamental Human Rights was given priority over the ability of the state to effectively collect taxes under the principle of effectiveness. It is not a surprising result but it is demonstrative of the EU’s tendency to confer rights on individuals over member states.

FIRST TIER TRIBUNAL

2. Agent or Principal?

This case concerned whether or not Mr Bryn Williams was acting as an agent or a principal in relation to the taxi business which he operates. He takes bookings for and tenders for contracts with local authorities who provide cab travel. He sends his drivers out to complete the contracts he signs.

HMRC contended that he acts as a principal, supplying taxi services to local authorities and, in turn, receiving taxi services from drivers, all for a consideration. They stated that Mr. Williams owns some of the cars himself and he bears the running costs of the contracts, which were negotiated without driver input. Mr. Williams argued that he was an agent, highlighting various factors pointing to this such as the fact that drivers could negotiate fess with him and keep their cars at home.

As with all agent or principal cases, regard was given to the material aspects of the operation as opposed to the strict wording of contracts. The Tribunal considered the nature of the connection between the driver and the local authority who Mr. Williams paired up. A typical agency situation would involve Mr. Williams negotiating on behalf of a driver, ultimately to form a contract between the driver and the local authority.

It was found that when Mr. Williams was negotiating the contracts with the local authorities there was no pre-determined driver meaning that there was no relationship between the local authority and the driver. Therefore it was held that Mr. Williams must be acting as a principal as there was no driver on whose behalf he was acting.

Constable Comment: This case shows the delicate balance of factors that determine whether someone is an agent or a principal. Due regard must be had to the contracts in place but also the commercial reality of the transaction. This case highlighted some useful areas of consideration and if your business operates in a similar way to Mr William’s, it is essential to ensure it is operating correctly to avoid unexpected VAT bills in the future.

3. Reasonable Excuse: Default Surcharge

This case concerned Ms. Chandler, a VAT registered sole trader who used the Flat Rate Scheme (FRS) to account for her VAT. In 2015 HMRC visited her and discovered that she had failed to increase the FRS percentage used in line with both statutory increases and the expiration of the “first year reduction” of 1%. HMRC sought to penalise Mr. Chandler but she contended that the default surcharge should not apply to her as HMRC had not taken all payments made by Ms. Chandler into account.

Ms. Chandler had made payments to HMRC but had made them to the wrong account; she had previously traded using a different registration number and mistakenly paid her VAT liability into this account meaning the funds were suspended and held by HMRC. HMRC did not accept this as payment, asserting that in order for a payment to be effective it had to be credited to the correct account. The Tribunal found this to be incorrect. It was found that the VAT regulations only require VAT to be paid to the Controller: which taxpayer account is not mentioned.

Despite this, there were still some historic accounting periods which attracted a default surcharge. For these periods Ms. Chandler argued that she had a reasonable excuse for the lack of funds which rendered her incapable of making payments to HMRC. Whilst an inability to pay cannot constitute a reasonable excuse, the Tribunal is willing to accept that the underlying cause of a lack of funds may indeed constitute such an excuse. Accepting that a fraud committed against Ms. Chandler constituted a reasonable excuse for the remaining periods, the Tribunal held that all surcharges against her were cancelled.

Constable Comment: This case is a useful example of where there is a reasonable excuse for having made late payments to HMRC. Whilst HMRC and the Tribunals are normally reluctant to accept a lack of funds as an excuse for late payment, in this instance there was a clear reason for the insufficiency of funds, the effects of which were being felt later.

If these cases raise any points that you would like to clarify or discuss, or you have any other VAT related concerns, please do not hesitate to contact Constable VAT and we will be pleased to assist.

CVC VAT Focus 12 April 2018

12th April 2018

PARTIAL EXEMPTION

It is around this time of year that those businesses that are partially exempt are required to calculate their annual adjustment. This adjustment must be made in the VAT return period ending June/July or August but can be made in the prior period (March/April/May) if a business wishes. CVC is able to calculate or review these annual adjustments for clients if required.

HMRC NEWS

VAT: road fuel scale charge tables

VAT Updated Valuation Table: Road Fuel Scale Charges effective from 1 May 2018 added to the page.

VAT Notice 700/11: cancelling your registration

This notice tells you when and how to cancel your VAT registration.

VAT Notice 700/1: should I be registered for VAT?

This notice cancels and replaces Notice 700/1 September 2016.

Apply for the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme (Notice FH1)

Page updated with link to new application service and further information what information needed to apply to register.

CVC BLOG

Sale of donated goods by a charity – an opportunity to reclaim VAT incurred

Where certain conditions are satisfied, the sale of donated goods by a charity is zero-rated for VAT purposes. This can be beneficial because no output VAT is due on the income generated by these sales but a right to input VAT recovery on associated costs arises.

CASE REVIEW

First Tier Tribunal

1. Reasonable Excuses?

In this instance the Tribunal heard an appeal from an individual, Mr. Phillip Ashley Legg against HMRC’s decision to impose various surcharges ranging from VAT accounting periods 12/05 to 12/14.
During this period, Mr Legg only made two payments from 14 September 2006 and 29 June 2012. Mr Legg sought to contend that he had a reasonable excuse for his behaviour in that he had contacted HMRC to establish a payment plan for the surcharges and by 2014 he had cleared all actual VAT arrears. Mr Legg relied heavily on the fact that his profits took a large drop in the period in question, owing to a rapid decline in his area of business.
Whilst the Tribunal accepted a sharp decline in the business had taken place, it still held that this was not a reasonable excuse as the down-turn took place over a number of years and Mr. Legg should have, as a prudent businessman, made adaptations to evolve and fortify himself against changing market conditions. The Tribunal were more sympathetic towards Mr Legg’s catastrophic hard drive errors which led to a severe loss of data. They also took into account that during the period in question, Mr Legg’s father was ill and Mr Legg played a large role in his care.
The important test in relation to a ‘reasonable excuse’ relates to whether or not the taxpayer has behaved reasonably in his or her circumstances. Whilst the Tribunal confirmed that a down-turn in business could not constitute a reasonable excuse, the death of a close relative and fatal computer crashes losing to loss of accounts can. For these reasons, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in half, cancelling a selection of those surcharges not relating to the decline in business activity.

2. Supply or unsolicited delivery

This appeal related to whether the applicant, Quality Engines Direct Ltd (QEDL), supplied silver ingots to Microring, a potential purchaser of the company. Whilst in the process of dealing with a transfer of his business, the proprietor (Mr. Rafiq) engaged with a purchaser (Mr. Healey) who immediately began treating the business as his own; making deposits and withdrawals and using the business address. HMRC questioned two invoices relating to the sale of silver from Mr. Rafiq to Mr. Healey which took place before the transfer of QEDL. The veracity of these invoices was denied by Mr. Rafiq, who denied any supply of silver was made to Microring or to Mr. Healey, or that QEDL makes supplies of silver at all, and that he owes no VAT on this alleged supply. He contended that the invoices raised by Microring are not genuine and there had been no silver trade activity with Microring at all.

Mr. Rafiq claimed that delivery of the silver to his business address was not sanctioned, the packages remained unopened as they were unsolicited and he informed Mr. Healey to remove the packages, which he did.

The Tribunal agreed on appeal with Mr. Rafiq that the delivery of silver was unsolicited, the invoices had been recreated by Mr. Healey on behalf of Microring. The Tribunal found that as the packages of silver were unsolicited, unopened and removed as a matter of urgency, that QEDL had not made a supply to Microring and Mr. Healey had in fact made the order.

3. Omitted sales and disallowed input tax

In this case, Mr. Paul Shore, trading as “DP Contractors” disputed a decision by HMRC in relation to his 04/11 VAT return. Mr Shore submitted that in this period of trading he was owed a £3,025.60 VAT repayment. HMRC submitted that due to under-declared output VAT of £16,599.40 and over-declared input VAT, Mr. Shore in fact owed £14,605.52 to HMRC.

Mr. Shore traded as DP Contractors which he claimed HMRC had confused with D&P Contractors, a separate firm to which he was a partner alongside Mr. David MacMillan. D&P Contractors had tendered for a contract with Southern Electrical Contracting Limited (SEC) using Mr Macmillan’s VAT registration number as Mr. Shore was not, himself, registered for VAT. Whilst Mr Macmillan was taken ill, Mr. Shore continued to trade using the VAT number of D&P Contractors whilst establishing himself as a sole proprietor “DP Contractors”.

Mr MacMillan played no role in the business being done for SEC by Mr. Shore and ceased to trade with D&P Contractors owing to injury and received no payment from Mr. Shore for on-going work. D&P Contractors issued over 190 invoices to SEC without declaring these on VAT returns and could offer no reasonable explanation for this. Mr. Shore attempted to highlight some discrepancy between the names of the firms but, as the Tribunal found, the same VAT registration number and bank account were used in continuing the trade by Mr. Shore and that the suppressed sales were correctly assessed on Mr. Shore, despite his pleas that Mr. Macmillan was jointly responsible.

Irrecoverable input tax which had also been deducted by Mr. Shore for items such as power showers were also disallowed and a forgery was uncovered for the purchase of a lorry. The Tribunal dismissed all appeals by Mr. Shore and upholds the assessments in full in relation to the suppressed sales.

CVC VAT Focus 22 March 2018

22nd March 2018

PARTIAL EXEMPTION

It is around this time of year that those businesses that are partially exempt are required to calculate their annual adjustment. This adjustment must be made in the VAT return period ending June, July or August but can be made in the prior period (March/April/May) if a business wishes. CVC is able to calculate or check these annual adjustments for businesses if required.

HMRC NEWS

Revenue & Customs Brief 3 (2018): Changes to the VAT exemption for cost sharing groups.
This brief and the related VAT information sheet explain the immediate changes that are taking place in HMRC’s policy following recent judgments

VAT Notes 2018 Issue 1
HMRC has published its 2018 VAT Notes Issue 1.

VAT: businesses that sell goods in the UK using online marketplaces
Updated with changes announced in the Autumn 2017 Budget for sellers that use online marketplaces.

VAT returns and EC Sales Lists Online: VAT
How to use the test service: 4.1 guidance has been updated with version 4.2.

Draft legislation: The Value Added Tax (Amendment) Regulations 2018
Response to consultation has been published.

CVC BLOG

Spring Statement 2018 and VAT

In the Spring Statement, the Chancellor announced details of two consultations with implications for the future operation of VAT. Please see our news item for further information.

CASE REVIEW

Upper Tribunal

1.Planning Permission Post-Sale

Cavendish Green Limited (Cavendish) appealed against a previous decision that the sale of a building did not qualify for zero-rating as the structure present at the point of transfer did not have automatic statutory planning permission and had not received planning permission from elsewhere. In the absence of the necessary planning permission, the sale should have been treated as VAT exempt and Cavendish should not be able to claim back input VAT relating to the project.

The First Tier Tribunal made it clear that planning permission must be sufficient at the time of supply in order for the sale of a building to benefit from zero-rating. In the Upper Tribunal, Cavendish sought to introduce new evidence to show that the structure in question did in fact have statutory planning permission at the time of sale and was thus able to benefit from the zero-rate. The Tribunal refused to admit this evidence as it found the behaviour of Cavendish to be “most unsatisfactory” as it failed to make a formal written application with evidence to support its claims and the addition of new evidence would not be fair and just.

The appeal was dismissed as the taxpayer had no proof to demonstrate that the structure met the conditions for automatic statutory planning permission, this case may have had a different outcome had Cavendish approached the Tribunal differently.

First Tier Tribunal

2. Sales of properties; TOGCs?

In this case the Tribunal considered whether the sale of four properties by Clark Hill Limited satisfied the necessary criteria to be treated as transfers of going concerns and, therefore, be outside the scope of VAT as neither a supply of goods nor services. The main issue between the parties is the interpretation of “relevant date” in the VAT law.

The Tribunal issued four decisions, relating to one property each. In three from the four transactions before the court, the transfer was held not to be a TOGC as HMRC had not been informed of the exercising of the option to tax by the “relevant date” which is held to be the date on which the deposit is received by the seller’s solicitors. The fourth property transaction presented its own unique circumstances which led to a different conclusion. The deposit was paid to the auctioneers of the property on the 3^rd of December, the seller’s solicitors received the funds on the 16^th. The point on which this question turns is the capacity in which the auctioneers held the deposit; agent or stakeholder.

HMRC contend that the funds were held by the auctioneers as an agent for the seller and therefore that Clark Hill should be treated as having received the deposit when the auctioneers did, on the 3^rd December. Clark Hill refuted this, claiming that there is no evidence to support the claim that the auctioneers were agents. The Tribunal agreed and this transaction was treated as a TOGC.

3. Appealing an assessment out of time

In Homechoice Flooring Limited (HFL), the appellant’s director, Mr. Singh, sought permission to make a late appeal in respect of a VAT assessment. Mr. Singh was over two years late in making this appeal, his explanation being that he believed he had in fact, through his former accountants, lodged an appeal already. He sought to contend that as he believed HFL’s accountants were dealing with the appeal, he had no cause to believe any further action was required on his or HFL’s behalf.

In response, HMRC looked to whether or not there was a reasonable excuse for the delay, arguing that HFL’s contention that an appeal had been made is not supported by any documents and there is no record of an appeal at HMRC in relation to this matter. It was also put forward that as Mr. Singh had changed accountants twice since the assessment, he could reasonably have been expected to make enquiries into the status of the appeal he believed to be ongoing.

As Mr. Singh made no effort to check on the status of HFL’s appeal, the Tribunal found that his excuse could not be seen as reasonable and therefore dismissed his appeal. They also stated that poor trading results do not amount to a reasonable excuse.

4. Bridge between buildings: does it make an annexe?

St Brendan’s Sixth Form College (St. Brendan’s) appealed against a decision made by HMRC that certain construction works carried out for St Brendan’s were liable for VAT at the standard rate, not zero-rated as St Brendan’s believed. A new block was built in order to provide extra space for teaching, a café and a staff room. The question is whether the new building qualified for zero-rating under Item 2, Group 5, Schedule 8 Value Added Tax Act 1994.

HMRC argued that the new building was not a separate building because of a link bridge between the new building and a pre-existing building. It was also contended that as the activities that will take place in the building are similar to those already taking place on the site in other buildings, the new building is actually an extension of the existing buildings. To refute this, St Brendan’s contended that the building is a separate building with its own access and facilities and is a different type of building and constructed of different materials, and serving different purposes.

After considering all points and taking into account the relevant case law, the appeal was allowed on the grounds that the new building was a new building and was not merely an extension of, or annexe to, the pre-existing buildings on site.

5. Zero rating hot food

Pegasus (Manchester) Limited (Pegasus) appealed against a VAT assessment relating to food sales which HMRC deemed to be hot and therefore standard rated. The appellant sold takeaway food in spill-proof containers which were not intended to retain heat. Pegasus contend that the food served is not intended to be hot at all but is served warm as a result of storage at 56C in a bain-marie, in order to comply with the food safety and hygiene regulations 2013. Before being placed in the bain-marie the food is cooled to 19-20C which is below the ambient temperature of the restaurant which is claimed to be 28-30C.

HMRC submitted that as the cooked food is kept in a bain marie with a temperature of 56C, the food is hot as it is above the ambient temperature; “hot” does not need to mean piping hot. It is also submitted that the main purpose of the bain marie is to sell hot food and moreover that compliance the food safety and hygiene regulations 2013 is only required where food is to be sold as hot. The provision by the appellant of napkins and cutlery to customers imply that the food is to be consumed as it is sold and it is sold as hot food.

The Tribunal found in favour of HMRC in this instance as the food is kept hot before being served and is hot as defined in the relevant legislation when it is supplied. The supply should therefore be standard rated.

6. Default surcharge direct debit not taken

Crown Blinds Limited appeal against a VAT default surcharge relating to late payment of VAT. The appellant does not dispute that the VAT for the relevant time period was paid late but submits that he had a reasonable excuse as he had a direct debit instruction in place for the payment of VAT but HMRC had failed to process this.

The appellant had cancelled the direct debit and reinstated it several times between September 2016 and March 2017 and HMRC had contacted the appellant on each of these occasions to state that if payment of VAT is to be taken by direct debit then a new instruction must be set up online or by sending paper instruction. Despite an email from the appellant’s bank manager stating that the direct debit had been reinstated on 5^th June 2017, the payment was not processed as the instruction was not reinstated on HMRC’s systems. HMRC had already advised that a new mandate would be required in correspondence in March 2017 and submit that a prudent trader would have acknowledged the correspondence and used an alternative method to make payment for the relevant periods.

The Tribunal found in favour of HMRC, stating that the appellant should have paid closer attention to the correspondence from HMRC which made clear that the direct debit was not being processed. The appellant cannot be said to have a reasonable excuse so the penalties were confirmed in full.