Rod Littley v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 30 November 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 616 (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 case concerns a s.61 VAT penalty of £92,852.25 imposed on Mr Rod Littley as sole director of Followit Ltd for failure to file VAT returns for periods 04/05–07/08. The tribunal found that Mr Littley was dishonest in accepting centrally issued assessments that were plainly inadequate given the company’s turnover and VAT received, dismissed his mitigation arguments (reliance on bookkeepers, inability to pay) and confirmed the penalty (reduced to 50% for cooperation).
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
A director who knows (or must have known) that VAT has been collected and accepts centrally issued assessments that are plainly inadequate in relation to that turnover/VAT received may be found dishonest for the purposes of s.60/61 and liable to the associated penalty.
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: low
The tribunal indicated that a director’s prior experience of running a company and stated expected turnover are relevant to assessing whether central assessments are obviously inadequate, and that failures such as not notifying HMRC of an address change or not updating HMRC about trading difficulties can be probative of culpability in penalty proceedings.