Aizio Associated Limited & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 29 June 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 576 (TC)
Overall AI summary confidence: medium
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: medium
This appeal concerned Schedule 24 VAT penalties imposed on Aizio Associated Ltd and Personal Liability Notices (PLNs) on two former directors after HMRC assessed best‑judgment figures for missing records following the loss of a laptop. The Tribunal found three returns (08/19, 11/19, 01/20) contained deliberate but not concealed omissions of output tax and confirmed penalties totalling £10,251.62 and the PLNs (Mr Campbell £3,417.20; Mr Billard £6,834.42), but allowed appeals for five earlier periods where returns were held to have been accurate when filed despite later loss of supporting evidence. Parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.
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 applied that a VAT return which was accurate when filed is not rendered retrospectively inaccurate for Schedule 24 penalty purposes merely because supporting evidence is later lost; conversely, an omission of output tax known to the submitter can amount to a "deliberate but not concealed" inaccuracy. HMRC bears the burden to prove, on the balance of probabilities, both that a penalty is payable and that any deliberate inaccuracy is attributable to a company officer.
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 (obiter) that contextual factors such as the COVID‑19 lockdown and witness credibility (including failure to provide a witness statement) affected its assessment of evidence, and commented that failure to back up electronic records, while relevant to facts, does not convert an otherwise accurate return into an inaccurate one for penalty purposes.
Warning
Chunk contains duplicated and somewhat disorderly text; care taken to judgment and condense core findings. notes are somewhat duplicated and disorderly; they appear to be an judgment and may not capture the full judgment.