Tekniko Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 10 December 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 637 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: medium

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Tekniko Limited appealed a £625.88 VAT default surcharge for the 02/09 period, arguing cashflow problems and failures by a previous accountant amounted to a "reasonable excuse." The Tribunal found no reasonable excuse within the statutory/technical meaning, rejected reliance on a third party and insufficiency of funds in the circumstances, and dismissed the appeal, upholding the surcharge.

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: medium

From the judgment as recorded in the notes, the Tribunal applied section 71 VATA as excluding mere insufficiency of funds and reliance on another person (including their dilatoriness or inaccuracy) from qualifying as a "reasonable excuse" for VAT defaults; prior defaults can also create a surcharge liability period bringing subsequent defaults within liability.

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 notes record a reference to CCE v Steptoe to the effect that, in some circumstances, insufficiency of funds might amount to a reasonable excuse, but the Tribunal regarded those circumstances as not applying here. Also noted was HMRC’s decision not to challenge the timeliness of the appeal, which was treated as dispositive for allowing the hearing.

Warning

Chunk contains repeated and slightly disordered text; some passages duplicated. The supplied notes contain some repeated and slightly disordered passages and may be materially incomplete; none

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML