Bank Mistake – HMRC Still Levy Penalty

10th May 2017 By Arman Khosravi

When a taxpayer named Mr Coomber sent his cheque by post to HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) to settle his tax demand, he thought that would be the end of the matter.

He paid the tax bill on 2 February 2016 and, as late as 1 March 2016, HMRC mistakenly told his agent that there was a ‘nil’ balance on his tax account.

However, on viewing his bank statements in early March, he saw that the cheque had been wrongly dishonoured by the bank on 4 February 2016. He rapidly made another payment to clear his tax account.

The result was a penalty for late payment from HMRC after the payment was credited to his tax account on 17 March 2016.

The payment due was in excess of £18,000 and the penalty was 5 per cent of the tax due after the due date, some £942.

He claimed that the penalty should be discharged because he had a ‘reasonable excuse’ for the late payment: he genuinely believed the payment had been made.

HMRC disagreed. So did the First-tier Tribunal, which ruled that ‘it was Mr Coomber’s responsibility, as the taxpayer, to make sure that his tax was paid on time. Mr Coomber chose to pay his tax liability by cheque rather than by some other means…which would have given him the immediate knowledge and assurance that the payment had been safely received. Mr Coomber also chose to pay his tax at a very late stage…in doing so, taking a risk that, if anything went wrong with the cheque, or (for example) if it went astray in the post, payment would not be made in time…’, concluding that a reasonable taxpayer would have ‘phoned the bank to find out whether the big tax cheque had cleared’.

For anyone familiar with the difficulties of dealing with many banks’ telephone banking systems, or dealing with HMRC via the Government Gateway, this conclusion may be something of a surprise. However, unless the ruling is successfully appealed, the penalty will stand.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Another Sad Tale of a Farmer's Disinherited Children – High Court Ruling

24th November, 2023 By

The tale of a devoted son labouring for years on a family farm only to be cut out of his father's will is so often told as to be almost a cliché. However, as a High Court ruling showed, such stories are often reflected in the sad and recurring reality of agricultural inheritance disputes. When he died, a father was the beneficial owner of a 20 per cent stake in his family farm. He also held a 25 per cent share of a company that ran a market gardening business...

Family Judge Treads the Blurred Boundary Between Life and Death

21st November, 2023 By

The ability of modern medical technology to keep patients' hearts beating and their lungs ventilating has led to a blurring of the boundary between life and death. As a High Court ruling showed, it sometimes falls to family judges to make the desperately hard decision as to when that line has been crossed. The case concerned a young man who fell to the ground after being assaulted in a pub garden, sustaining a catastrophic brain injury. He was admitted to hospital in a deep coma and, following weeks of observation...

False Claim to Be a Cash Buyer Ruled Fraudulent in Ground-Breaking Case

16th November, 2023 By

In coming to the aid of a frail and elderly householder, the High Court has ruled in a landmark case that she was on the receiving end of a fraudulent misrepresentation when a would-be purchaser of her home was falsely described to her as a cash buyer. A copy of a contract before the Court indicated that the woman, aged in her 80s, had signed a contract agreeing to the sale of her home for £840,000. Following a purported exchange of contracts, the purchaser, an investment company, launched proceedings against...

Sometimes Parental Love is Not Enough – Court Sanctions Boy's Adoption

13th November, 2023 By

Parents may be worthy of praise and deeply love their children, but it sadly does not always follow that they are able to provide them with a stable home. The High Court made that point in sanctioning a little boy's placement for adoption. Due to concerns that he was not receiving a good enough standard of parenting, a local authority placed him in temporary foster care and sought care and placement orders. His parents, although separated, staunchly resisted plans for his adoption, arguing that his mother was able to look...