BAILII is celebrating 24 years of free online access to the law! Would you consider making a contribution?
No donation is too small. If every visitor before 31 December gives just £1, it will have a significant impact on BAILII's ability to continue providing free access to the law.
Thank you very much for your support!
 |
[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 >> Chaffont Line Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT V19264 (21 September 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19264.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19264 |
||
[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]
19264
LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE Reference No: LON/2005/520
Copy sent to:
Appellant/Applicant
Respondents
- and -
HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents
Tribunal: RODNEY P HUGGINS (Chairman)
MICHAEL M. SILBERT (FRICS)
Sitting in Public in London on 14 September 2005
DIRECTION
This appeal against a decision of the Respondents with respect to a surcharge assessment dated 1 March 2005 in the sum of £5216,36 and being a reasonable excuse appeal as defined by rule 2 of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 as amended coming on for hearing this day
AND UPON HEARING Mr Terence Reynolds, Chairman for the Appellant and Mrs Pauline Crinnon of the Solicitor's office of HM Revenue and Excise for the Respondents
AND THIS TRIBUNAL heaving heard this appeal and having announced its decision
AND the Appellant and the Respondents by their said representatives stating pursuant to rule 30(8) of the said Rules 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 does not have a reasonable excuse for the default which resulted in the Respondents making the assessment under appeal
AND THIS TRIBUNAL DIRECTS that this appeal is dismissed because although the Appellant's book-keeper stole some £10,000 at the beginning of January the Appellant allowed her to continue in employment until the end of January when the return and tax were due to be filed and paid and did not seek assistance from the Company's Accountants until mid-February. In any event the Tribunal finds that the Appellant would have had in sufficiency of founds to pay the VAT due irrespective of the book-keeper's dishonesty
AND that there is to be no direction as to costs
