Tag Archives: tribunal

The penalty regime….the dark side of VAT!

By   9 February 2015
0

I have made a lot of references to penalties in my other articles. So what are they, and how much could they cost if a business gets it wrong?

HMRC detail three categories of inaccuracy. These are significant, as each has its own range of penalty percentages. If an error is found to fall within a lower band, then a lower penalty rate will apply. Where the taxpayer has taken ‘reasonable care,’ even though an error has been made, then usually HMRC will not apply a penalty.

Penalty Categories 

–  An error, when reasonable care not taken: 30%;

–  An error which is deliberate, but not concealed: 70%;

–  An error, which is deliberate and concealed: 100%.

Unhelpfully, there is no definition of ‘reasonable care’. However, HMRC have said that they would not expect the same level of knowledge or expertise from a self-employed person, as from a large multi-national.  HMRC expect that, where an issue is unclear, advice is sought, and a record maintained of that advice. They also expect that, where an error is made, it is adjusted, and HMRC notified promptly. They have specifically stated that merely to adjust a return will not constitute a full disclosure of an error. Therefore a penalty may still be applicable.

The amount of the penalty is calculated by applying the appropriate penalty rate (above) to the ‘Potential Lost Revenue’ or PLR. This is essentially the additional amount of VAT due or payable, as a result of the inaccuracy, or the failure to notify an under-assessment. Special rules apply where there are a number of errors, and they fall into different penalty bands.

Defending a penalty

The percentage penalty may be reduced by a range of ‘defences:’

–  Telling; this includes admitting the document was inaccurate, or that there was an under-assessment, disclosing the inaccuracy in full, and explaining how and why the inaccuracies arose;

–  Helping; this includes giving reasonable help in quantifying the inaccuracy, giving positive assistance rather than passive acceptance, actively engaging in work required to quantify the inaccuracy, and volunteering any relevant information;

–  Giving Access; this includes providing documents, granting requests for information, allowing access to records and other documents.

Further, where there is an ‘unprompted disclosure’ of the error, HMRC have power to reduce the penalty further. This measure is designed to encourage businesses to have their VAT returns reviewed.

A disclosure is unprompted if it is made at a time when a person had no reason to believe that HMRC have discovered or are about to discover the inaccuracy. The disclosure will be treated as unprompted even if at the time it is made, the full extent of the error is not known, as long as fuller details are provided within a reasonable time.

HMRC have included a provision whereby a penalty can be suspended for up to two years. This will occur for a careless inaccuracy, not a deliberate inaccuracy. HMRC will consider suspension of a penalty where, given the imposition of certain conditions, the business will improve its accuracy. The aim is to improve future compliance, and encourage businesses which genuinely seek to fulfil their obligations.

Appealing a penalty

HMRC have an internal reconsideration procedure. A business should apply to this in the first instance. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the business can pursue an appeal to the Tribunal. A business can appeal whether a penalty is applicable, the amount of the penalty, a decision not to suspend a penalty, and the conditions for suspension.

The normal time limit for penalties to four years. Additionally, where there is deliberate action to evade VAT, a 20 year limit applies. In particular, this applies to a loss of VAT which arises as a result of a deliberate inaccuracy in a document submitted by that person.  These are just the penalties for making errors on VAT returns. HMRC have plenty more for anything from late registration to issuing the wrong paperwork.

Help

In my view there is generally a very good chance of success in a business challenging a penalty.  Each case should at least be reviewed by an adviser, and experience insists that a robust defence often results in full or part mitigation.  We have a very good track record in appealing HMRC decisions and have taken cases right up to High Court.  However, most cases can be settled before they get to Tribunal, and indeed, the greatest chance of success is usually at the beginning of the process before HMRC become entrenched.

Follower Notices – a new HMRC weapon with a potentially dire impact on taxpayers

By   17 July 2014
0

From Royal Assent of Finance Bill 2014 (expected within the next week) HMRC has a new weapon which challenges a taxpayer’s basic right to have its case heard by a Court.

This is by the introduction of “Follower Notices”. The new power allows HMRC to order one taxpayer to settle their dispute when, in HMRC’s view, a decision in another case is relevant to the issues in the first taxpayer’s case.  Since taxpayer’s circumstances are unlikely to be identical to another’s, the question of which decisions are relevant involves difficult decisions on issues of interpretation and questions of fact. These are points that ought to be considered by the Court, not unilaterally by one of the parties to the litigation.

A Follower Notice gives the taxpayer 90 days to concede its dispute and pay HMRC’s estimate of the tax due. The taxpayer has only limited rights to challenge the notice, and even then any such challenge is considered by HMRC and not the Court.

If the taxpayer does not concede following HMRC’s issue of a Follower Notice, additional penalties are levied. These penalties not only significantly increase the amount which the taxpayer has at stake in the dispute but must be challenged separately.

It is clear that the changes intend to reduce the backlog of similar disputes. However, these new rules are completely one-sided and has created an environment for yet further litigation and acrimony.

Please contact Marcus if you would like to discuss this further.

Taxpayer loses in “TNT” claims lead case.

By   9 July 2014
0

In the recent FTT case of Zipvit the court considered retrospective claims by businesses in cases where Royal Mail (and Parcelforce) had treated individually negotiated supplies of postage etc as exempt. In the previous ECJ case of TNT it was ruled that these services should have been standard rated. The claims (said to be over £1billion in total stood behind Zipvit) were made on the basis that recipients of these services could reclaim the VAT as input tax that should properly have been charged by the Royal Mail.
The three salient points where:

1. Where the supplies taxable? – On this point the court agreed with the taxpayer, the UK legislation must be read with the same restrictions as in the relevant EC Directive.
2. Was VAT due from, or paid by, the appellant? – Curiously, the judge did not agree with either party and stated that both had been labouring under a misapprehension. No further submissions were requested however, and on this point the appeal failed.
3. Lack of VAT invoice – Although HMRC have the discretion to accept alternative evidence to support an input tax claim, it was not obliged to. The FTT supported HMRC’s refusal and noted that there would, in any event, be a windfall for the applicant. The appeal was dismissed.

The judge commented that it was likely that this case would be appealed to a higher court.
If you have an appeal stood behind Zipvit, or have previously received exempt supplies from Royal Mail or Parcelforce in respect of individually negotiated contracts – please contact us for further information.

Latest from the courts – Trinity Mirror plc

By   1 May 2014
0

Good news for taxpayers who submit returns or payments slightly late.

There is an HMRC default surcharge regime whereby a taxpayer is penalised when he fails to lodge a VAT return or payment by the due date (usually one month and one week after the end of the VAT period). There was no dispute over the fact that the return and payment was indeed a day late.

Trinity Mirror plc appealed against a default surcharge of £70,909 at the 2% rate.  Broadly, the company was late twice within the same 12 month period.  However, the return was just one day late and the company contended that such a surcharge was disproportionate having regard to domestic and EC legislation.   Applying the Upper Tribunal’s decision in the case of Total Technology (Engineering) Ltd, the Tribunal held that proportionality had to be assessed at the level of the default surcharge regime as a whole and at the individual level by asking whether the penalty imposed on a particular taxpayer based on the particular facts of its case was proportionate.  The Tribunal held that the surcharge in Trinity Mirror plc’s case was unfair as the company had been previously compliant and the default was only one day.  The chairman went on to comment that this penalty was harsh and excessive in light of the low gravity of the infringement.

Because there are no provisions for the Tribunal to mitigate such a surcharge, it had no option but to completely set aside the penalty.

This may well provide a taxpayer with an additional weapon in their armoury when dealing with HMRC’s surcharges and provides additional clarity on proportionality in relation to the levying of default surcharges.  There already exists a concept of “reasonable excuse” which goes toward mitigation of surcharges and there is significant case law to illustrate what constitutes a reasonable excuse.  If you have received what you consider to be an unfair or harsh penalty, please contact us as experience insists that in the majority of cases we have dealt with we have been able to either remove or reduce HMRC’s penalties.

Latest on VAT/GST and International Trade

By   30 April 2014
0

This month at a meeting in Tokyo over 250 high level delegates from over 100 countries and international organisations endorsed a framework for applying VAT to cross-border trade. There has been significant concern over the various domestic legislation applied to international trade which can result in transactions being taxed twice, or going untaxed. There has been little, or no co-ordination in the application of VAT and GST worldwide and the aim of the recent Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) summit was to remedy these discrepancies and endorse a new set of OECD guidelines for international trade. The new standards aim to ensure tax neutrality in cross-border transactions and a clearer taxation of B2B trade in services.

Meeting statement (with links to the relevant background) here:http://www.oecd.org/ctp/consumption/statement-of-outcomes-on-vat-gst-guidelines.pdf

Click here for information on our International Services