In Priory London Ltd v HMRC; HMRC v Jocoguma Properties Ltd [2022] UKUT 225 (TCC) (12 August 2022) the UT confirmed that daily penalties for failure to make ATED returns could be charged retrospectively.
The two appeals were heard separately by the FTT. In both cases the companies submitted ATED returns late and after the returns were received HMRC charged an initial fixed penalty of £100. In the notices charging the penalties HMRC stated that daily penalties under FA 2009 Sch 55 para 4 would be charged if the returns were more than three months late. HMRC subsequently issued penalty notices consisting of the maximum daily penalties together with further fixed penalties. Both companies appealed against the penalties. PL Ltd’s appeal was dismissed by the FTT but JP Ltd’s appeal was allowed in respect of...
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 Priory London Ltd v HMRC; HMRC v Jocoguma Properties Ltd [2022] UKUT 225 (TCC) (12 August 2022) the UT confirmed that daily penalties for failure to make ATED returns could be charged retrospectively.
The two appeals were heard separately by the FTT. In both cases the companies submitted ATED returns late and after the returns were received HMRC charged an initial fixed penalty of £100. In the notices charging the penalties HMRC stated that daily penalties under FA 2009 Sch 55 para 4 would be charged if the returns were more than three months late. HMRC subsequently issued penalty notices consisting of the maximum daily penalties together with further fixed penalties. Both companies appealed against the penalties. PL Ltd’s appeal was dismissed by the FTT but JP Ltd’s appeal was allowed in respect of...
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: