Generate a structured brief — facts, issues, held, reasoning, and significance — for this case in seconds. Or browse the verbatim judgment via the source links below.
VAT � default surcharge � payment after extended due date � trader�s incorrect understanding that longer period allowed � levels of surcharge questioned as being an excessive interest charge � held, payments not despatched in sufficient time to reach HMRC�s account � also held, no reasonable excuse for defaults � surcharges not interest and not in circumstances disproportionate � appeal dismissed
The Appellant (�Intabase�) appeals against the imposition of six default surcharges for the periods ending 07/07, 01/08, 04/08, 07/08, 10/08 and 04/09.
The evidence consisted of a bundle of documents containing the correspondence. From the evidence we find the following facts.
Intabase was registered for VAT with effect from 1 February 2001. It was in default for various earlier periods from 02/06 onwards, but these periods were not the subject of the present appeal.
From June 2006 correspondence between Intabase and HMRC showed the address of Intabase as 46 RL Stevenson Avenue, Bournemouth. On 6 May 2008 Mr Thornton wrote to HMRC asking for the address to be changed to �77 Shatesbury Road Bournemouth� [the actual address, as shown on the Notice of Appeal, being 77 Shaftesbury Road]. A VAT return form to cover period 04/07, sent by HMRC to Intabase at its former address, was returned to HMRC on 27 April 2007 and stamped by HMRC �Returned Mail � Gone Away�. No other correspondence was returned to HMRC.
Auto-extracted from BAILII. Full structured brief in progress — the source links below give you the verbatim judgment in the meantime.
Multiple official and mirror sources — pick whichever loads cleanly on your network.
Common Room
0 comments · About the Common Room →
No comments yet — start the discussion.
Voted-best comments help future students and feed Caselaw's AI study tools.