[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 >> Ryebank Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT V20212 (19 June 2007) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2007/V20212.html Cite as: [2007] UKVAT V20212

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

20212

Value Added Tax — requirement to register 01/05/2005 — form sent to the Commissioners but misplaced by them — registration from 010/05/2005 — penalty reduced to £50 — appeal allowed in part.

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

RYEBANK LIMITED Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: David S Porter

Sitting in public in Manchester on 11 June 2007

Stephen Hardy appeared for the Appellant

Richard Mansell of the solicitor's office of HM Revenue and Customs appeared for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007


 


DECISION

1. Ryebank Limited ("the Appellant") appeals against the Commissioners decision contained in a letter dated 3 August 2006 registering the Appellant for Value Added Tax purposes from 01/05/2005 and raising a penalty of £494. Stephen Hardy says that the Appellant applied to be voluntarily registered from 01/05/04. The Commissioners say that the application for registration was not received until 06/06/2006.
2. Stephen Hardy, a director of the Appellant, appeared on behalf of the Appellant. Richard Mansell a solicitor from the office of HM Revenue and Customs appeared for the Respondents and produced a bundle for the tribunal.

The Facts

3. The Appellant installs and services computer hardware for Banks, Footsie 100 companies and others. Stephen Hardy decided to register the Appellant voluntarily for VAT and he submitted an application stating that the registration date should be 01/05/04. No evidence was produced at the hearing of the application, nor any correspondence. Further, Stephen Hardy confirmed that he had not added VAT to his invoices because he would not have done so until he received a registered number. Nor was any evidence deduced that he had made enquiries as to why the Appellant had not been registered. The Appellant's Chartered Certified Accountants Fergus & Fergus wrote to H M Revenue and Customs on 24 August 2006 and stated at paragraph 1.2:

"We can independently and unequivocally confirm that we assisted the director in the completion of the original application (form VAT1) which was actually submitted on 27 May 2005, only slightly later than would have been required under the legislation (turnover limits having been reached on during March 2006) A copy of the signed return is attached for reference."

That return was signed by Stephen Hardy and dated 18/05/2005.

4. The bundle produced by the Commissioners also contained a further application signed by Stephen Hardy and dated 05/06/2006. This application also identified the registration date as 01/05/2005. The application had been sent in by Stephen Hardy, when he realised, as far as the Commissioners were concerned, that had no notification had been received by them. The failure to notify and the penalty arise from 01/05/2005.
5. I am satisfied from the evidence that form VAT 1, prepared by the Accountants was sent into the Commissioners on 27 May 2005 and that it must have been misplaced at the Commissioners office.

The Decision

6. I have decided that the Appellant submitted form VAT 1 on 27 May 2005 and that as a result the due date for registration is 01/05/2005. From the evidence before me there is nothing to suggest that the Appellant had a liability to be compulsorily registered prior to that date. I reduce the penalty to £50.
7. The appeal is allowed in part and no costs are awarded to the either side.

DAVID PORTER

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 19 June 2007

MAN/06/0766