In Suchant J Varma v HMRC (TC03147 – 20 December 2013) the taxpayer appealed against a penalty for the late filing of his self-assessment return. His accountant had written to HMRC on 5 April 2013. The letter included the following: ‘The late filing penalty was applied as a result of the SA100 which was filed electronically on 25th January in some way not reaching the HMRC computer. As we explained in our letter of 11 March we have no explanation for it but it happened to five of our clients which were all filed on the same day but at different times.’
HMRC did not accept the accountant’s explanation even when they informed HMRC that the late filing penalty imposed on the other four clients had been quashed. HMRC would not explain what distinguished the appellant from the other four taxpayers whilst in 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 Suchant J Varma v HMRC (TC03147 – 20 December 2013) the taxpayer appealed against a penalty for the late filing of his self-assessment return. His accountant had written to HMRC on 5 April 2013. The letter included the following: ‘The late filing penalty was applied as a result of the SA100 which was filed electronically on 25th January in some way not reaching the HMRC computer. As we explained in our letter of 11 March we have no explanation for it but it happened to five of our clients which were all filed on the same day but at different times.’
HMRC did not accept the accountant’s explanation even when they informed HMRC that the late filing penalty imposed on the other four clients had been quashed. HMRC would not explain what distinguished the appellant from the other four taxpayers whilst in 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:
