Contour Business Interiors v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 9 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 300 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: high
Short overview
This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.
AI confidence in this short overview: high
This appeal concerned penalties for five late monthly CIS returns (periods ending 5 Feb–5 Jun 2010). The Tribunal found a reasonable excuse only for the February 2010 return, rejected reasonable excuse for the subsequent four returns, accepted HMRC's receipt dates and reduced total penalties from £1,500 to £1,400. The appeal was allowed only in respect of the initial £100 penalty; the other penalties were upheld.
Ratio decidendi
This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.
AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high
The Tribunal treated as determinative that an agent’s paper CIS submissions will not be effective for the contractor’s filing obligation where HMRC has not been notified/authorised to deal with that agent (no proven 64-8) and that an initial reasonable excuse is lost if the contractor, once aware of the failure, does not, without unreasonable delay, take steps to ensure correctly completed returns reach HMRC. These principles underpinned allowing the February penalty but confirming the later penalties.
Obiter dicta
This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.
AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium
The Tribunal observed (obiter) that, absent independent evidence, an agent’s internal records of posting and unproven assertions of having sent a form 64-8 are insufficient to establish HMRC receipt, and that copies or photocopies of returns do not substitute for originals when guidance requires originals.