In Kelcey & Hall Solicitors v HMRC (TC02333 – 7 November) a firm of solicitors persistently paid its PAYE and NIC after the due dates and HMRC imposed penalties under FA 2009 Sch 56. The firm appealed contending that it had a reasonable excuse because it had not received money due from the Legal Services Commission and that the penalties were excessive because payments which it had made should have been allocated to its liability for the current tax month rather than to its liability for the previous tax month. Judge Radford allowed the appeal in part finding that HMRC had failed to observe the practice laid down in HMRC’s Debt Management and Banking Manual at DMBM210105 which instructs HMRC staff that ‘where exceptionally you feel the customer’s allocation would not be in their best...
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 Kelcey & Hall Solicitors v HMRC (TC02333 – 7 November) a firm of solicitors persistently paid its PAYE and NIC after the due dates and HMRC imposed penalties under FA 2009 Sch 56. The firm appealed contending that it had a reasonable excuse because it had not received money due from the Legal Services Commission and that the penalties were excessive because payments which it had made should have been allocated to its liability for the current tax month rather than to its liability for the previous tax month. Judge Radford allowed the appeal in part finding that HMRC had failed to observe the practice laid down in HMRC’s Debt Management and Banking Manual at DMBM210105 which instructs HMRC staff that ‘where exceptionally you feel the customer’s allocation would not be in their best...
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:
