In P&H Cleaning Company v HMRC (TC03051 – 14 November 2013) the taxpayer had incurred penalties for the late payment of PAYE (FA 2009 Sch 56). However he argued that ‘the assessment of penalties in a single block some six months after the year end provides no help and no encouragement to compliance’. He also insisted that the penalties were disproportionate as the returns had only been filed a few days late on each occasion.
The FTT (referring to Hok [2012] UKUT363) explained that the ground of appeal was outside its jurisdiction – which is limited to deciding whether ‘on the proper application of the words of the statute a penalty is in fact due and if so what in accordance with the statute its proper amount should be.’
The tribunal also noted that the position is slightly different in relation to VAT...
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 P&H Cleaning Company v HMRC (TC03051 – 14 November 2013) the taxpayer had incurred penalties for the late payment of PAYE (FA 2009 Sch 56). However he argued that ‘the assessment of penalties in a single block some six months after the year end provides no help and no encouragement to compliance’. He also insisted that the penalties were disproportionate as the returns had only been filed a few days late on each occasion.
The FTT (referring to Hok [2012] UKUT363) explained that the ground of appeal was outside its jurisdiction – which is limited to deciding whether ‘on the proper application of the words of the statute a penalty is in fact due and if so what in accordance with the statute its proper amount should be.’
The tribunal also noted that the position is slightly different in relation to VAT...
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:
