In Scotts Glass & Glazing Services v HMRC (TC01355 – 22 August) a partnership submitted CIS returns on a photocopy of the relevant form.
HMRC imposed penalties on the basis that the photocopies did not satisfy the requirements of SI 2005/2045 reg 4(1).
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the partnership’s appeal.
Judge Hellier observed that reg 4(1) provided that a return must be made ‘in a document or format provided or approved by the Commissioners’ (ie using the word ‘or’ rather than the word ‘and’).
He held that ‘if HMRC provide a document to be used as a return that they must have approved its format.
Thus the format of an original return is approved.
That means that the format of a copy of that document is also approved.
HMRC may not approve the...
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 Scotts Glass & Glazing Services v HMRC (TC01355 – 22 August) a partnership submitted CIS returns on a photocopy of the relevant form.
HMRC imposed penalties on the basis that the photocopies did not satisfy the requirements of SI 2005/2045 reg 4(1).
The First-tier Tribunal allowed the partnership’s appeal.
Judge Hellier observed that reg 4(1) provided that a return must be made ‘in a document or format provided or approved by the Commissioners’ (ie using the word ‘or’ rather than the word ‘and’).
He held that ‘if HMRC provide a document to be used as a return that they must have approved its format.
Thus the format of an original return is approved.
That means that the format of a copy of that document is also approved.
HMRC may not approve the...
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:
