Glen Contract Services Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 19 August 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 391 (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 HMRC's withdrawal of Glen Contract Services Ltd's CIS gross payment status for repeated late CIS/PAYE payments. The Tribunal found HMRC acted lawfully under the statutory provisions and Schedule 11 compliance test and dismissed Glen's appeal. The Tribunal also rejected Glen's claim of a "reasonable excuse" based on cash‑flow difficulties and prior informal forbearance.

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 treated the legal test as requiring lawful withdrawal of gross payment status where compliance failures include PAYE/CIS payments more than 14 days late and the taxpayer cannot establish a qualifying reasonable excuse; prior concessionary forbearance or commercial hardship does not prevent later withdrawal once non‑compliance continues and the taxpayer has been put on notice.

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 withdrawal of gross status can have serious commercial consequences but that such adverse effects cannot displace clear statutory requirements; it also indicated that mere financial difficulty, without evidence of exceptional circumstances or concrete remedial steps after warning, will generally not amount to a reasonable excuse.

Warning

- The chunk contains substantial repetition and duplicated passages. Notes include substantial repetition and duplicated passages.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML