WWM Rose & Sons Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 31 May 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 470 (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
WWM Rose & Sons Ltd failed to pay £96,802.73 VAT by the due date 7 March 2022 and HMRC imposed a 2% default surcharge of £1,936.05. The Tribunal found the company was in statutory default, no Time-to-Pay agreement had been agreed before the due date, and the company did not establish a reasonable excuse (ordinary cashflow problems were insufficient). The surcharge was held to be lawfully due and correctly calculated.
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
A taxpayer’s contact with HMRC after the statutory due date does not constitute an agreed Time-to-Pay that prevents a default; and ordinary insufficiency of funds or routine trading cashflow difficulties do not amount to a reasonable excuse absent an unforeseeable or inescapable underlying cause.
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 noted, by way of observation, that allowing a few days for direct debits to clear does not change the statutory payment due date, that taxpayers may be expected to use published HMRC/gov.uk information (eg SLNs) to inform themselves of deadlines, and that the Tribunal’s role is confined to whether a surcharge is lawfully due and whether a reasonable excuse exists rather than broader notions of fairness.