• Home
  • Business taxes
  • Personal taxes
  • Capital taxes
  • International
  • VAT
  • Tax admin
  • Resources
  • Books
  • About
  • Contact
Claritax News
  • Home
  • Business taxes
  • Personal taxes
  • Capital taxes
  • International
  • VAT
  • Tax admin
  • Resources
  • Books
  • About
  • Contact
  • Business taxes
  • Personal taxes
  • Capital taxes
  • International
  • VAT
  • Tax admin
Claritax News

VAT default surcharge – failure of online banking fob and Covid-19 not a reasonable excuse – penalty not disproportionate – Diamond Bodycraft Ltd

08 Feb 2023

The First-tier Tribunal have dismissed an appeal against a VAT default surcharge (Diamond Bodycraft Ltd v HMRC [2023] UKFTT 100 (TC)).

A VAT payment was made two days late and a surcharge imposed. The company appealed on the grounds that it had a reasonable excuse and that, being only two days late, the surcharge was disproportionate.

Mrs Mitchell, the company director, argued that she had a reasonable excuse because her bank fob had failed and she could not access online banking and make a payment until a replacement had been provided. Furthermore, she had been suffering from long Covid. The tribunal considered the principles in The Clean Car Company Limited [1991] VATTR 234 and Perrin [2018] UKUT 156 (TCC) and decided:

  • With regards to the faulty fob – “we find that the excuse is not objectively reasonable as we consider that a reasonable trader in the same position would have attempted to make payment by telephone or attempted to contact HMRC when it became clear that the payment could not be made on time”.
  • With regards to Covid-19 – “The business was not prevented from filing its return on time and attempting to make the payment on time, so that any delays relating to COVID cannot be a reasonable excuse in respect of the delay in making payment”.

Considering the matter of proportionality, the tribunal was bound by the decision in Trinity Mirror that had stated that the objective “of the default surcharge regime is to impose a penalty for failing to pay VAT on time, and not to penalise further for any subsequent delay in payment … It would not be possible, therefore, in our view, for the fact that the payment was only one day late to render an otherwise proportionate penalty disproportionate”. There were no exceptional circumstances here to override that principle.

The appeal was therefore dismissed and the penalty upheld in full.

https://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2023/TC08722.html

Related content from Claritax Books

Value Added Tax, written by Ciaran McGee MA (Oxon), FCA, CTA, is an extensive volume (over 1,000 pages), written primarily for non-VAT specialist accountants and tax advisers.

Value-Added-Tax

Latest articles (all topics)

  • VAT – MTIC fraud – PLNs totalling £12,833,984.49 were valid – Hackett
  • Insolvency (VAT Notice 700/56) – HMRC continue to move content to Insolvency practitioner’s handbook
  • One-to-many campaign – offshore funds
  • VAT – application to reinstate appeal against notice of requirement for security refused – Excel Building Contractors Ltd
Read more

Weekly email alerts

Sign up here for this free service.

wide banner

Recent Posts

  • VAT – MTIC fraud – PLNs totalling £12,833,984.49 were valid – Hackett
  • Insolvency (VAT Notice 700/56) – HMRC continue to move content to Insolvency practitioner’s handbook
  • One-to-many campaign – offshore funds
  • VAT – application to reinstate appeal against notice of requirement for security refused – Excel Building Contractors Ltd
  • EIS – withdrawal of investor’s relief following loss of qualifying status – appeal struck out – FTT had no jurisdiction to consider arguments based on conduct of HMRC and fairness – Salami

Recent Comments

No comments to show.

©2026 All Rights Reserved

Terms & Conditions | Privacy

Copy