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.
VALUE ADDED TAX �Appeal against default surcharges- payments consistently paid late- HMRC kept fully informed throughout the default period � choices made to use funds for costs other than tax payments- whether a reasonable excuse- no � Value Added Tax Act 19994 sections 59 and 59A - Appeal dismissed
This is an appeal by H & R Gray Haulage Ltd (�GH�) against� decisions by HM Revenue �& Customs [�HMRC�] to charge VAT default surcharges for� the periods 09/16, 12/16 ,03/17, 09/17 and12/17 for a total amount, amended at the tribunal hearing, of �32,443.88. The Tribunal had before it a bundle of documents which included the notice of appeal.
The issue before the Tribunal was whether HMRC�s decision to impose the surcharges was correct in accordance with the legislation and whether or not GH had established a reasonable excuse for the defaults which had occurred.
Section 59 (7) (b) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 [VATA] provides that a surcharge does not arise in relation to a failure to submit a return and/or payment by the due date if the person satisfies HMRC (or on appeal, a Tribunal) that they had a reasonable excuse for the failure and that they put right the failure without unreasonable delay after the excuse had ended.
Norman Emerson Group Limited v. The Commissioners for a HM Revenue & Customs [2018] UKFTT 30 (TC)
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.