In J Boyd t/a Pixelbox Design v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 190 (14 March 2019) the FTT found that ignorance of the fact that a partnership return was required (in addition to a personal return) was not a reasonable excuse.
HMRC had issued Mr Boyd as representative of Pixelbox Design a partnership with a late filing penalty of £100 on 18 February 2014 and with daily penalties when the return remained unfiled more than three months after the due date (FA 2009 Sch 55 paras 3 and 4). Mr Boyd had finally filed a non-electronic return on 17 March 2014.
On 9 March 2014 he had appealed the penalties: ‘We had no idea we had to do a return to the partnership which had ceased to exist and we had also filled out and submitted personal returns for this period. We assumed that this was all...
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 J Boyd t/a Pixelbox Design v HMRC [2019] UKFTT 190 (14 March 2019) the FTT found that ignorance of the fact that a partnership return was required (in addition to a personal return) was not a reasonable excuse.
HMRC had issued Mr Boyd as representative of Pixelbox Design a partnership with a late filing penalty of £100 on 18 February 2014 and with daily penalties when the return remained unfiled more than three months after the due date (FA 2009 Sch 55 paras 3 and 4). Mr Boyd had finally filed a non-electronic return on 17 March 2014.
On 9 March 2014 he had appealed the penalties: ‘We had no idea we had to do a return to the partnership which had ceased to exist and we had also filled out and submitted personal returns for this period. We assumed that this was all...
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:
