26. We have set out the facts we find proved above. We find that the Appellant has not established a proper factual basis on which to say that it had a reasonable excuse for the late payments leading to the surcharges. The direct debit was cancelled by either the Appellant or its bankers before either surcharge was due.
27. Applying the test in Perrin, even at their highest and viewed objectively, the rather vague suggestions of confusion about the direct debit situation would not suffice as amounting to a reasonable excuse in any event.
28. Further, the Appellant was on notice of the need to make its VAT payments on time from the previous surcharge notices and extensions to the periods. The reasonable taxpayer would therefore have been particularly vigilant to ensure timely payment.
29. We therefore find that the Appellant has not proved a reasonable excuse for the late payments of VAT which led to the surcharges imposed.
Decision
30. For the above reasons the appeal is therefore dismissed, and the surcharges are upheld.
Source: bailii.org
Latest Posts in "United Kingdom"
- Hotelbeds v HMRC: Businesses Can Reclaim VAT Without Invoices, Court Rules
- VAT Report – What Is a VAT Report?
- Post-Brexit VAT Divergence and why the EU Forgives and the UK Doesn’t?
- Fiscal Solutions – Great News – The United Kingdom is now part of our Fiscal Portal!
- Post-Brexit VAT: Why the EU Accepts Imperfect Export Proof but the UK Demands Perfection
