FTTTx INCOME TAX – late submission of partnership tax return -Whether reasonable excuse for late submission of return – No.Court: FTTTx
References:  UKFTT 799 (TC),
FTTTx Penalty of £1200 for late online filing of Employer’s Annual Return – Appellant assumed penalties related to PAYE payments which in fact were paid up to date and that penalties had been issued in error – whether reasonable excuse – yes for part of period – appeal part allowedCourt: FTTTx
FTTTx Penalty for late online filing of Employer’s Annual Return – Appellant asserted that return filed – HMRC’s records showed that correlation ID matched a return by an associated company – no correlation ID had been issued to Appellant – whether return filed – no – whether reasonable excuse for default – no – appeal dismissedCourt: FTTTx
ICO The complainant requested the RAG status of any government projects currently under Gateway Review and the name of the projects. The RAG status refers to a projects status i.e. Red, Amber or Green. The OGC confirmed it held two stage zero and one stage one Gateway Review in relation to the Government ID Card Project but refused to disclose the RAG status of the project as the information requested was subject to section 33 -Court: ICO
The complainant has requested information concerning Oakmeeds Community College’s (the College) decision to change its school uniform. The Commissioner’s decision is that the College has provided the complainant with all the information it holds relevant to the scope of the request. The Commissioner requires no steps to be taken.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 1 – Complaint Not upheld
Appeal against surcharge assessment – reasonable excuse appeal.Court: VDT
Burden of proof
Appeal – Perversity challenge on finding important for remedy.
Cross-Appeal – Did ET misdirect itself on burden of proof on victimisation claim.
As a matter of construction, the provisions of section 54A RRA did not apply to a claim of victimisation under section 2.
The court considered a short point about the commencement of laytime when a vessel arrives before the first layday, arising under the standard form of Asbatankvoy voyage charter, with certain common additional clauses.Court: ComC
The claimant having failed in his claim for unfair dismissal, wanted to claim against the tribunal and appeal tribunal alleging a conspiracy against him. The hearing had been heard in private to which he had objected. He wanted to go straight to the court of appeal.
Held: The capacity of the EAT was statutory only, and there was no mechanism of the kind requested by the claimant. The appellant must have appreciated that his appeal was bound to fail. It was therefore frivolous or vexatious, and costs were awarded againt him.
Application for leave to appeal on issue of whether ‘by necessary implication, the effect of section 36 of the Administration of Justice Act is that a mortgagee must first obtain the leave of the court before proceeding to enforce its right to possession or its power of sale under the mortgage deed in relation to a dwelling house.’
Held: Leave was granted.
Where shares had been purchased at an artificially inflated price, after a fraudulent misrepresentation, the loss was calculated on the value they would have had on the market with full knowledge of the company’s affairs, absent that misrepresentation.Court: CA
Application by a local authority (‘the authority’) in the Court of Protection in respect of the capacity of the Respondent to litigate and to make decisions in relation to her life.Court: CoP
FTTTx VAT default surcharge – Appellant’s book-keeper was only individual in the company who was able to complete return and arrange payment of vat – book-keeper ill when vat due for payment – whether reasonable excuse – no – whether penalty disproportionate – no – Appeal dismissedCourt: FTTTx
FTTTx INCOME TAX – Construction Industry Scheme – monthly returns – penalties – whether returns submitted on time – whether HMRC records conclusive – no – s 7 Interpretation Act 1978 – evidence as to arrangements for posting – on balance of evidence, held returns posted in sufficient time to be received by due dates – appeal allowedCourt: FTTTx
ICO The complainant requested copies of correspondence exchanged between Monitor and two other public authorities, namely Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust and the South Yorkshire Strategic Health Authority for the twelve months prior to February 2005. The complainant also asked for minutes of any meetings involving Monitor and the two other public authorities. During this period Monitor was considering Rotherham General Hospitals NHS Trust’s application to become a foundation hospital trust. The public authority provided the complainant with several documents but redacted parts of a number of these documents on the basis of section 40 and 41. Having reviewed the redacted information the Commissioner is satisfied that section 41 has been applied correctly in regard to the majority of the withheld information. However, the Commissioner also decided that a small portion of the redacted information was not exempt by either section 40 or 41, but this information has now been communicated to the complainant.
Section of Act/EIR & Finding: FOI 40 – Complaint Partly Upheld, FOI 41 – Complaint Partly Upheld