In Rosie Arnfield v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0053 (3 February 2015) the FTT reduced a penalty.
HMRC had imposed a late filing penalty but Mrs Arnfield’s accountants contended that they had registered as agents – filing Form 64-8 – and that HMRC had not informed them that a tax return had been issued.
The FTT found that the return had been filed late and that a penalty was prima facie due. It added that the taxpayer had no reasonable excuse as she should have showed her accountants a letter sent by HMRC in February and containing her UTR.
The FTT noted however that HMRC had failed to consider ‘special circumstances’ (FA 2009 s 55). It observed that the following statement had been inserted in HMRC’s statement of case: ‘HMRC have considered special reduction but their view is that there...
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 Rosie Arnfield v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 0053 (3 February 2015) the FTT reduced a penalty.
HMRC had imposed a late filing penalty but Mrs Arnfield’s accountants contended that they had registered as agents – filing Form 64-8 – and that HMRC had not informed them that a tax return had been issued.
The FTT found that the return had been filed late and that a penalty was prima facie due. It added that the taxpayer had no reasonable excuse as she should have showed her accountants a letter sent by HMRC in February and containing her UTR.
The FTT noted however that HMRC had failed to consider ‘special circumstances’ (FA 2009 s 55). It observed that the following statement had been inserted in HMRC’s statement of case: ‘HMRC have considered special reduction but their view is that there...
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)")