Lime and Ginger Location Solution Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 March 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 329 (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
Lime and Ginger appealed HMRC default VAT surcharges for periods 09/22 and 12/22. The Tribunal found HMRC had proved the defaults and prior defaults so the 15% surcharge applied, dismissed the appeal for 09/22 (no reasonable excuse; surcharge upheld) but allowed the appeal for 12/22 and cancelled that surcharge because a short, promptly remedied accounting/data processing delay amounted to a reasonable excuse.
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 HMRC issues proper surcharge notices and proves the taxpayer missed VAT deadlines and had the requisite prior defaults, the burden rests on HMRC to establish those facts to justify the s.59 VATA surcharge percentage; an appellant’s personal pressure, exhaustion or temporary cash-flow issues will not constitute a reasonable excuse if evidence shows funds or reasonable arrangements could have been made, whereas a brief unforeseeable accounting/data processing problem that is responded to promptly (payment next day) can amount to a reasonable excuse.
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 indicated that late admission of third‑party reports can be allowed where no prejudice arises and the overriding objective supports admission, and that in penalty proceedings of a quasi‑criminal character a Tribunal should adapt "no case to answer" protections by applying a test analogous to strike‑out principles rather than strict criminal procedural rules.