PIC Build Construction Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 9 April 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 154 (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
PIC Build appealed six default VAT surcharges totaling £18,403.27, but the tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the surcharges. The tribunal refused to permit late‑introduced grounds of appeal that had not been notified to HMRC and found the appellant had not shown a reasonable excuse for the defaults. The company may seek permission to appeal under the tribunal rules.
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
The tribunal applied that parties must disclose grounds of appeal in a timely manner and that it may refuse to consider new, late‑introduced grounds not sufficiently identified to the other party. Separately, allegations of external events (third‑party misconduct, theft, delayed payments) will not constitute a reasonable excuse for VAT defaults unless supported by sufficient evidence and a clear temporal connection to the specific default periods.
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 that failure to provide dates, crime reports or bank/overdraft evidence undermines reliance on events such as burglary or short‑term cash shortfalls; and observed that a large but short‑term shortfall relative to turnover does not automatically establish an inability to pay without detailed financial evidence.