TC00078 The Funky End v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 110 (TC) (20 May 2009)


BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?

No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!



BAILII [Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]

First-tier Tribunal (Tax)
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> First-tier Tribunal (Tax) >> The Funky End v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 110 (TC) (20 May 2009)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2009/TC00078.html
Cite as: [2009] UKFTT 110 (TC)

[New search] [Help]

The Funky End v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 110 (TC) (20 May 2009)
VAT - PENALTIES
Default surcharge
    [2009] UKFTT 110 (TC)
    TC00078
    Appeal number LON/2009/183
    DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Electronic payment- Extension under Notice 700, para 21.3.1 – Payment initiated on 6 October and received on 8 October – No reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed
    FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
    TAX CHAMBERS
    THE FUNKY END Appellant
    - and -
    THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S
    REVENUE AND CUSTOMS (Default Surcharge) Respondents
    TRIBUNAL: THEODORE WALLACE
    JOHN ROBINSON
    Sitting in public in London on 29 April 2009
    The Appellant did not appear
    Mrs Gloria Orimoloye, advocate, for the Respondents
    © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2009

     
    DECISION
  1. This was an appeal against a default surcharge of £637.02 for the period to 31 August 2008.

  2. The appeal hearing date was notified to the Appellant. Shortly before the hearing time the Tribunal clerk telephoned the Appellant and was told by Oliver Cluskey, a partner, that he had been preparing for the appeal but thought that it was on Friday. He asked for the appeal to be heard later in the day to enable him to travel from Aldershot.

  3. Having read the papers we concluded that the appeal would fail even if all the matters raised in the Notice of Appeal were accepted. Other cases were listed later in the day. If we put back the appeal the Appellant would merely have a wasted journey. We decided to proceed in the Appellant's absence under Rule 33 of The Tribunal procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The Appellant is entitled to apply under Rule 38 within 28 days to set aside the decision. We considered a fax sent by Mr Cluskey when he was told that we would proceed.

  4. The return was dated 28 September 2008 and stamped by Customs as received on 2 October 2008. No payment was made with the return.

  5. On receiving the surcharge assessment Mr Cluskey wrote enclosing a bank giro counterfoil stamped by the bank cashier as paid with cash on 6 October 2008. He wrote that he had always believed that a trader got an extra 7 days if paying by bank giro credit; he had made the payment on 6 October and believed that cash payments to banks were credited immediately.

  6. 6 October was a Tuesday. Customs recorded the payment as received on 8 October. This is consistent with the time taken under the multi-lateral clearing system for bank giro payments.

  7. Under Notice 700 paragraph 21.3.1 the time for payment by electronic means is extended by seven days provided payment is received by Customs within that time. The booklet with the bank giro credit payment forms states at para 4,

    8. "Please ensure that:
    … Payment is effected at least 3 clear banking days before the due date."
  8. The fact that a cash payment into the Appellant's bank would be credited immediately to his account has no bearing on the transmission of funds by bank giro credit to another bank.

  9. In practice giro payments are normally credited to the recipient's bank on the third working day including the first day provided it is not sent too late on the first day. In order to be within the extended time limit the payment would have had to arrive on the following day. This would never happen under the bank giro payment system.

  10. There was no reasonable excuse for the late payment. There was no suggestion that the Appellant had been misled by Customs. He disregarded the advice on the payments booklet. The appeal is dismissed.

    11. THEODORE WALLACE
    TRIBUNAL JUDGE
    RELEASE DATE: 20 May 2009

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2009/TC00078.html