Tag Archives: reasonable-excuse

The penalty regime……the dark side of VAT

By Marcus Ward 22 May 2020

VAT Penalties

I have made a lot of references to penalties in other articles over the years. So I thought it would be a good idea to have a closer look; what are they, when are they levied, rights of appeal, and importantly how much could they cost if a business gets it wrong?

Overview

Broadly, a penalty is levied if the incorrect amount of VAT is declared, either by understating output tax due, or overclaiming input tax, or accepting an assessment which is known to be too low.

Amount of penalty

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 no penalty will apply.

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%.

Reasonable care

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.

Notification

What the penalty is based on

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 review their own VAT returns.

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, where a business should apply to in the first instance. If the outcome is not satisfactory, the business can pursue an appeal to the First Tier Tribunal. A business can appeal on the grounds of; 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.

Even darker

There are even more severe penalties for deliberate acts, including significant terms of imprisonment. That is the subject of another article.

Assistance

My advice is always to check on all aspects of a penalty and seek assistance for grounds to challenge a decision to levy a penalty. We have a very high success rate in defending businesses against inappropriate penalties. It is always worth running a penalty past us.

VAT Latest from the courts – HMRC’s bad ‘phone service

By Marcus Ward 18 August 2016

As we know, late payment of VAT results in a Default Surcharge. Details of DS here

However, if a taxpayer has a reasonable excuse the DS will not be due. In the interesting recent case of McNamara Joinery Ltd here

The appeal was on the grounds that HMRC itself caused the default. The business was successful in the appeal on the grounds that its agent could not contact HMRC to arrange a time to pay agreement because of HMRC’s poor telephone service. Anyone who has attempted to contact HMRC by telephone will appreciate that this isn’t a one-off case!

Background

The appellant had a previous history of submitting returns on time, but making late payments late such that the period in question would give rise to a DS if the return or payment was late. Appreciating that the business would not have sufficient funds to meet the VAT payment due, it instructed its agent to contact HMRC on its behalf in an attempt to arrange a “time to pay” (TTP) agreement. The agent attempted to do this two days before the payment was due. However, there were significant problems with the telephone service and the agent was unable to get through as the line kept “going dead” (It appears from later comments made by HMRC that this was due to the volume of calls made at the end of the VAT period). A TTP agreement was subsequently reached, but only after the due date which HMRC argued was too late to avoid the DS.

Decision

On the subject of reasonable excuse, the FT Tribunal observed that “A reasonable excuse is normally an unexpected event, something unforeseeable, something out of the appellant’s control. Insufficiency of funds is not regarded as a reasonable excuse although the reason for the insufficiency might be. It is unfortunately part of the hazards of trade that debtors fail to keep promises to pay. These submissions cannot be regarded as establishing for the appellant a reasonable excuse for the late payment.”
It continued “However, faced with the problem of not having received promised payments, the appellant through its agent did all that it could do in the circumstances…., its agent tried repeatedly to contact HMRC by telephone but was unsuccessful until 12 February 2016 when a time to pay agreement was made and subsequently the arrangements made were adhered to. In the Tribunal’s view this repeated failure to contact HMRC was unexpected and unforeseeable”. Therefore the taxpayer had a reasonable excuse and the DS was removed.

The Judge did not accept HMRC’s submission that the appellant should have been aware that there was a likelihood that there would be a large volume of calls being made to HMRC on the days immediately prior to the due date and that as a result the appellant could reasonably have expected delays in being able to make contact. HMRC do not publish times when their lines are likely to be busy. Rather than expecting delays it is reasonable for a taxpayer to expect telephone calls to HMRC to be answered without delay. In the Tribunal’s view HMRC were in a better position than the appellant to know when there is a likelihood of a large volume of calls and they should have arrangements in place to deal with the higher volume of calls promptly.

So HMRC lost this case because they failed to answer the phone.

Lessons to be learned

One cannot rely on HMRC answering their own phones, even though they are fully aware that there will be an increased demand at certain times. They do not have arrangements in place to deal with the known demand. They do not have a reasonable excuse for not dealing with taxpayers!
When attempting to contact HMRC it is a very good idea to keep an accurate log.
If it is likely that a business is experiencing cashflow issues, contact HMRC as soon as possible and do not leave it to the last moment.
It is possible to arrange a TTP agreement with HMRC.
A business should take advice from their advisers as soon as possible to avoid DSs. This may avoid both a TTP position and/or a DS.

Latest from the courts – Trinity Mirror plc

By Marcus Ward 1 May 2014

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.