AWD Motorsport v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKVAT V19757 (05 September 2006) 

19757

Default Surcharge – Control visit – Papers to be kept at Office – not delivered to Appellant – Change of account – Return and payment late by 6 weeks – appeal dismissed..

EDINBURGH TRIBUNAL CENTRE

AWD MOTORSPORT	Appellant(s)

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR
HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE & CUSTOMS	       Respondents

Tribunal:	Mrs Gretta Pritchard, BL., MBA., WS 							(Chairman):

Sitting in Edinburgh on 25 August 2006.

for the Appellant(s)	Mr G Swan		

for the Respondents	Mr Russell Harrison

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006.

DECISION

This is an appeal against the imposition of a default surcharge imposed in respect of the quarter 10/05 in the sum of £459.37 issued on 16/01/06.

The Appellant appeared on his own behalf.  Mr Russell Harrison appeared for the Respondents.   The Appellant explained he had become very tired of having surcharges imposed and had taken steps to ensure it was not to happen again.   He had changed his accountant in October 2005, and had taken the accountant’s advice to install SAGE software on his computer where he had previously used an EXCEL package.  His returns had been done by his previous accountant.    He had never done a return himself.

On 25 October 2005 he received a letter from HMRC advising a control visit would be carried out on 22 November.  This was difficult for him as his tax year was 1.11 – 31.10 and his books required to be sent to his new accountant as quickly as possible.   He therefore expected some relief from the necessity to have his VAT return and payment submitted on time by 30.11.05.   

Mr Russell Harrison submitted that HMRC had some sympathy with the Appellant’s transfer of business from one accountant to another and a transfer of bookkeeping to a new computer system.   However the delay was not just a few days or a week or two beyond 30 November.  It was not till 12.01.06 that the return and payment were submitted following the issue of a default surcharge liability notice on 16 December 2005.

HMRC therefore asked that the appeal be refused.

The Appellant accepted payment of the return had not been sent till January more likely because of holidays over Christmas than anything else although he had asked his accountant to deal with the matter as quickly as possible.

I believe Mr Swan who was sensible but who felt aggrieved by a series of events.  However I did consider the delay of six weeks to be too long after the visit of the HMRC Officer to be too long a delay to allow the other factors  to be a reasonable excuse.  I was also assured the new computer system had not teething problems and the information contained on it did not relate to the period of the return.   A trader is not entitled to rely on a third party to ensure the return and payment are timeous.

For these reasons I must refuse the appeal.

No expenses are due to or by either party.

MRS GRETTA PRITCHARD, BL., MBA., WS

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE:  5 September 2006

EDN/06/15