In Astoria Properties Ltd v HMRC (and related appeal) (TC01772 – 7 February) a company (AP) which was registered for VAT sold a property to an associated company for £510 000 plus VAT of £76 500.
It failed to include this on its VAT return. HMRC imposed penalties under FA 2007 Sch 24 at the rate of 47.25% of the potential lost revenue on both AP and its principal director (C) who was also the company secretary of the associated company. They appealed.
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Judge Cannan found that C had been ‘doing nothing more than trying to erect a smokescreen to cover the fact that he had deliberately made an inaccurate return’.
Why it matters: FA 2007 Sch 24 provides for penalties for errors. The First-tier Tribunal upheld a penalty at...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In Astoria Properties Ltd v HMRC (and related appeal) (TC01772 – 7 February) a company (AP) which was registered for VAT sold a property to an associated company for £510 000 plus VAT of £76 500.
It failed to include this on its VAT return. HMRC imposed penalties under FA 2007 Sch 24 at the rate of 47.25% of the potential lost revenue on both AP and its principal director (C) who was also the company secretary of the associated company. They appealed.
The First-tier Tribunal dismissed the appeals. Judge Cannan found that C had been ‘doing nothing more than trying to erect a smokescreen to cover the fact that he had deliberately made an inaccurate return’.
Why it matters: FA 2007 Sch 24 provides for penalties for errors. The First-tier Tribunal upheld a penalty at...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
