The Upper Tribunal has allowed HMRC’s appeal against the controversial decision of Judge Geraint Jones in the case of HMRC v Hok Ltd (Upper Tribunal – 25 October). A company (H) had only one employee who ceased employment during 2009/10. H did not submit its P35 for 2009/10 by the due date of 19 May. On 27 September HMRC imposed a penalty of £400 (at £100 per month for four months). H appealed contending that the amount of the penalty was unreasonable because HMRC should have warned it earlier that it was still required to submit a P35 even though its only employee had left. The First-Tier Tribunal allowed the appeal in part but the Upper Tribunal reversed this decision and restored the penalty which HMRC had imposed. The tribunal (Warren J and Judge Bishopp) held that ‘the First-tier Tribunal does not have any...
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:
The Upper Tribunal has allowed HMRC’s appeal against the controversial decision of Judge Geraint Jones in the case of HMRC v Hok Ltd (Upper Tribunal – 25 October). A company (H) had only one employee who ceased employment during 2009/10. H did not submit its P35 for 2009/10 by the due date of 19 May. On 27 September HMRC imposed a penalty of £400 (at £100 per month for four months). H appealed contending that the amount of the penalty was unreasonable because HMRC should have warned it earlier that it was still required to submit a P35 even though its only employee had left. The First-Tier Tribunal allowed the appeal in part but the Upper Tribunal reversed this decision and restored the penalty which HMRC had imposed. The tribunal (Warren J and Judge Bishopp) held that ‘the First-tier Tribunal does not have any...
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:
