Biznomy Solutions UK Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 17 October 2023

Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 892 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

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: high

This appeal concerned a 5% VAT default surcharge charged to Biznomy Solutions UK Ltd for the period 10/22 after returns were filed but payments were late within an existing surcharge period. The tribunal found the surcharge was correctly charged, rejected the appellant's claim of a reasonable excuse, and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also held it had no power to substitute the points-based penalty regime that came into force from 1 January 2023.

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

Where VAT returns are filed but payments are not received by the due date within an existing surcharge period, the statutory default surcharge regime applies and successive defaults attract the prescribed higher percentage surcharges; correspondence from HMRC (including Help Letters) that clearly notifies late payment cannot be relied on as giving a reasonable excuse for non-payment.

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 that HMRC’s prior forbearance in not issuing a monetary penalty earlier may have been unhelpful to the appellant, suggesting a lower earlier penalty might have prompted earlier compliance, but this did not affect the decision on the surcharge.