Tribunal addresses VAT surcharges amidst post-pandemic business recovery

Tribunal rules on VAT surcharge disputes for mobile catering company

The First-tier Tribunal (Tax) recently ruled on a dispute involving Zivny Catering Ltd, a mobile catering service for the film industry, and HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regarding VAT surcharges during the post-pandemic recovery period. The case centred on whether the surcharges imposed for VAT periods 09/22 and 12/22 were correctly issued and if the company had a reasonable excuse for the late payments.

Zivny Catering Ltd faced significant operational challenges during the COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a temporary halt in the film industry. As business resumed, the company experienced a surge in demand, resulting in operational strain and delays in VAT compliance. The Tribunal examined whether these circumstances provided a reasonable excuse for the late VAT payments.

For the VAT period 09/22, the Tribunal found that the company did not have a reasonable excuse for the late payment, as the financial hardship claimed was not substantiated. Despite the operational pressures, the Tribunal concluded that the company should have made adequate arrangements to ensure timely tax compliance. Consequently, the surcharge for this period was upheld.

However, for the VAT period 12/22, the Tribunal accepted the company's explanation of delayed processing due to communication challenges with suppliers and the manual entry of over 13,000 items. The Tribunal found this to be a reasonable excuse, leading to the cancellation of the surcharge for this period.

The Tribunal also considered the proportionality of the surcharges, rejecting the argument that they were disproportionate given the company's operational circumstances. The decision highlighted the importance of maintaining fiscal neutrality and prompt tax compliance, even amidst challenging business conditions.

Additionally, the Tribunal addressed arguments regarding the rationality of HMRC's review decisions and the potential for surcharge mitigation. It concluded that the decisions were not irrational and that there was no basis for mitigating the penalties under the relevant statutory provisions.

This case underscores the complexities businesses face in balancing operational demands with tax compliance, particularly in the wake of unprecedented events like the COVID-19 pandemic. It serves as a reminder of the need for businesses to establish robust compliance mechanisms to avoid financial penalties.

Learn More

For more information on VAT compliance and related issues, see BeCivil's Resolving Construction Disputes Guide.

Copyright & permissions