A discussion document is seeking views by 11 May about potential improvements to how HMRC applies penalties for failing to pay what is owed or to meet deadlines for returns or registration.

As HMRC designs a tax system for the modern, digital world, it wants to ensure that its approach to penalties also keeps up to date with both technology and behavioural science. HMRC is considering whether and how it should differentiate between those who deliberately and persistently fail to meet administrative deadlines or to pay what they should on time, and those who make occasional and genuine errors for which other responses might be more appropriate.

HMRC is looking for feedback from individuals and businesses. The purpose of the discussion is to seek views on the policy design and any suitable possible alternatives, before consulting later on a specific proposal for reform.

I look at the main points below and identify where changes to the penalty system are most likely to be made.

The document may be accessed here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/400211/150130_HMRC_Penalties_a_Discussion_Document_FINAL_FOR_PUBLICATION__2_.pdf

 Summary

In terms of Indirect Tax there are two main areas which HMRC is focussing on:

VAT default surcharge – HMRC highlights two issues with the current VAT default surcharge regime. The first is the concern that while the absence of penalty for the initial offence in a 12 month period gives business the chance to get processes right, some customers simply ignore this warning.

The second concern is the issue of proportionality which fails to distinguish between payments that are one or two days late or many months late.

 Excise regulatory penalties – This also considers proportionality, noting that regulatory failures can lead to very large penalties, because the penalty is fixed as a percentage of the duty. The size of such penalties might be viewed as disproportionate.

The existing, long-standing default surcharge regime has always had issues with the principle of proportionality.  The regime has been challenged in the Courts –  notably in the Trinity Mirror Plc case (soon to be heard at the UT) where the earlier FTT allowed the appeal against a default surcharge on the grounds of proportionality.

If you would like assistance in making a representation please contact me.