[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Woods v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT V19024 (24 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19024.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19024

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

 


19024

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE Reference No: LON/2004/2344

Copy sent to:

Appellant/Applicant

Respondents

MRS SUSAN WOODS Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: STEPHEN OLIVER QC (Chairman)

MR S K DAS

Sitting in public in London on 9 March 2005

DIRECTION

under Rule 30(8)

THIS APPEAL against a decision of the Respondents with respect to a Default Surcharge being a reasonable excuse appeal as defined by rule 2 of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 as amended and a mitigation appeal coming on for hearing this day

AND UPON HEARING the Appellant in person and Alistair Dougal for the Respondents

AND THE parties present at the hearing by their said representative stating pursuant to Rule 30(8) of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 as amended that they do not require the said decision to be recorded in a written document in accordance with Rule 30(1) of the said Rules

THIS TRIBUNAL FINDS THAT the Appellant did not have a reasonable excuse for her failure to notify her liability to register in time. Reliance on her accountant's advice and the accountant's failure to register are excluded from ranking as reasonable excuses

THIS TRIBUNAL FURTHER FINDS that the 50 per cent mitigation given to the Appellant for her prompt reaction to the discovery that she should have registered should be increased by a further 20 per cent to reflect the fact that we are satisfied on the evidence that her failure to register in time was attributable to the advice she had received from her accountant

AND THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTS THAT this appeal is ALLOWED in part and the mitigation should be increased by 20 per cent to 70 per cent

AND that there is to be no direction as to costs

STEPHEN OLIVER QC Chairman Release Date: 24 March 2005