David Low t/a Lows Traditional Fish & Chips v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Decision date: 16 October 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 272 (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 concerns David Low trading as Lows Traditional Fish & Chips challenging a default surcharge of £792.32 for VAT quarter 06/08. The tribunal refused the appeal, finding that late BACS instructions meant payment missed the extended due date and that reliance on a new bookkeeper’s ignorance of payment timing did not amount to a reasonable excuse. The surcharge was upheld and no expenses were awarded.
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’s ratio is that a taxpayer’s reliance on an agent’s or bookkeeper’s ignorance of VAT payment timing will not, by itself, constitute a reasonable excuse for late payment, particularly where the taxpayer knew he was subject to a penalty regime; such knowledge undermines claims of excusable reliance on others for compliance.
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 judgment records, as non-decisive observations, that earlier small penalties below the minimum may be recorded without collection and that the tribunal can procedurally accept written submissions when the appellant is absent; these points were noted but not determinative of the outcome.
Warning
Chunk contains duplicated/repeated text; otherwise clear.