In D J Butler v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 666 (30 September 2016) the FTT found that a business had not been carried out in partnership so that a penalty for late registration was due; however it mitigated the penalty by 100%.
Mr Butler was a decorator and carpenter who also carried out a project management activity. HMRC contacted him in April 2011 to ascertain whether he should be registered for VAT. HMRC’s calculations indicated that the registration threshold had been exceeded since April 2008. Mr Butler was therefore compulsorily registered and a penalty was imposed.
Mr Butler contended however that he carried the project management business in partnership with his wife. The FTT noted that the burden of proof was on Mr Butler. There was no dispute that the business was carried out with a view to profit;...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In D J Butler v HMRC [2016] UKFTT 666 (30 September 2016) the FTT found that a business had not been carried out in partnership so that a penalty for late registration was due; however it mitigated the penalty by 100%.
Mr Butler was a decorator and carpenter who also carried out a project management activity. HMRC contacted him in April 2011 to ascertain whether he should be registered for VAT. HMRC’s calculations indicated that the registration threshold had been exceeded since April 2008. Mr Butler was therefore compulsorily registered and a penalty was imposed.
Mr Butler contended however that he carried the project management business in partnership with his wife. The FTT noted that the burden of proof was on Mr Butler. There was no dispute that the business was carried out with a view to profit;...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")