Were coronavirus and childbirth reasonable excuses for lateness?
A company paid its VAT bills late. The director argued that there was a reasonable excuse due to coronavirus, and his partner giving birth. HMRC rejected this, so he appealed to the tax tribunal. What was the outcome?

Hawksmoor Construction Ltd (H), paid its VAT liability for the September 2020 and March 2021 periods late. This triggered a default surcharge notice, and when part of the next quarter’s liability was paid late, HMRC imposed a 5% penalty. The sole director of H tried to appeal against the penalty on the basis that the due date coincided with his absence from work for three weeks. This was due to him and his partner contracting coronavirus and being required to isolate, and also that his partner gave birth during this period.
The First-tier Tribunal rejected the reasonable excuse appeal. It agreed with HMRC that, whilst contracting coronavirus was unfortunate, there should have been provisions in place to ensure deadlines were met in the absence of key staff. It also stated that the birth of a child was not an “unforeseen event”, and observed that H appeared to have collected the VAT from customers but used this to pay business expenses rather than setting it aside to pay HMRC. As a result, the bar to persuade the tribunal was set very high, and H fell short of this.
Related Topics
-
Capital gains tax break for job-related accommodation
You’re in the process of selling a property that you bought as your home but because of your job have never lived in. You’ve been told that you’ll have to pay tax on any gain you make, but might a special relief get you off the hook?
-
Should you revoke your 20-year-old option?
Your business has let out a building to a tenant and it is now just over 20 years since you opted to tax the property with HMRC. Should you revoke it so that your tenant no longer needs to pay VAT?
-
Chip shop owner fined £40k for hiring illegal worker
A Surrey fish and chip shop owner has been left in shock after being fined £40,000 for allegedly employing someone who didn’t have the right to work in the UK, even though he conducted a right to work check. Where did this employer go wrong and what can you learn from it?