I have wondered before about the controls which HMRC places on its staff’s decisions to pursue litigation. Some of HMRC’s recent decisions to litigate are shocking in their indifference to human suffering.
J Woolf (TC03165) was the result of another morally shocking decision to litigate by HMRC. The taxpayer submitted her 2009/10 tax return on 27 January 2011. She had a liability to make a balancing payment of tax of £58,600, but did not pay the amount until 7 March. HMRC issued a surcharge on the late paid tax. She had undergone major surgery to remove a cancerous tumour in the autumn of 2010, with chemotherapy treatment thereafter. She had developed a life threatening infection as a result of her chemotherapy and was critically ill in hospital in December 2010 and January 2011. She continued to receive radiation treatment until May 2011. As a result of her condition, she had not been well enough to deal with her affairs properly and had been unable to sort out the funds to pay the January tax bill. In all, her payment had been delayed by just over five weeks, yet HMRC officials thought this a case in which it was appropriate to impose a surcharge for her failure on the basis that it lacked a ‘reasonable excuse’ and to pursue the unfortunate Mrs Woolf to a tribunal hearing.
The First-tier Tribunal agreed that the taxpayer’s illness constituted a reasonable excuse throughout the default period, so the taxpayer’s appeal was allowed.
I have wondered before about the controls which HMRC places on its staff’s decisions to pursue litigation. Some of HMRC’s recent decisions to litigate are shocking in their indifference to human suffering.
J Woolf (TC03165) was the result of another morally shocking decision to litigate by HMRC. The taxpayer submitted her 2009/10 tax return on 27 January 2011. She had a liability to make a balancing payment of tax of £58,600, but did not pay the amount until 7 March. HMRC issued a surcharge on the late paid tax. She had undergone major surgery to remove a cancerous tumour in the autumn of 2010, with chemotherapy treatment thereafter. She had developed a life threatening infection as a result of her chemotherapy and was critically ill in hospital in December 2010 and January 2011. She continued to receive radiation treatment until May 2011. As a result of her condition, she had not been well enough to deal with her affairs properly and had been unable to sort out the funds to pay the January tax bill. In all, her payment had been delayed by just over five weeks, yet HMRC officials thought this a case in which it was appropriate to impose a surcharge for her failure on the basis that it lacked a ‘reasonable excuse’ and to pursue the unfortunate Mrs Woolf to a tribunal hearing.
The First-tier Tribunal agreed that the taxpayer’s illness constituted a reasonable excuse throughout the default period, so the taxpayer’s appeal was allowed.
