20724

SECURITY – Appellant admitting no defence to the requirement for security - in sufficient funds to pay £12,100 required - returns made – Customs agree to accept lesser amount if appropriate payments made in relation to outstanding VAT -. Case dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

PANHEAT CONTRACTS LIMITED Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR

HER MAJESTY’S REVENUE AND CUSTOMSRespondents

Tribunal: ChairmanDavid S Porter

Member Jon P M Denny

Sitting in public in Manchester on 5 June 2008

Christos Panagopolous a director for the Appellant

Bernard Hedley from the solicitors’ office instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008

DECISION

  1. In this appeal Christos Panagopolous, director of the Appellant, challenges the Respondent’s notice of requirement to give security under paragraph 4(2)(a) of schedule 11 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994 dated 21 September 2007 in the sum of £12,100. Mr Haley says that Christos Panagopolous owed £2995.61, £21,446.90 from previous businesses he had been involved with and £10,000 approximately on returns produced to the tribunal at the hearing.
  2. Mr Christos Panagopolous represented the Appellant and Mr Bernard Haley represented the Respondents. Mr Haley provided the tribunal with a bundle of documents.

The facts

  1. Mr Panagopolous concede at the hearing that he had no defence to the request for £12,100 for security. He said that he could not fund that requirement. The Chairman stated that the question of funding the requirement was not something the Tribunal could deal with. If Mr Panagopolous accepted that security was correctly demanded then the appeal would have to be dismissed.
  2. Mr Haley advised the Tribunal that Mr Panagopolous had supplied the Respondents with appropriate VAT returns for the period 4 April 2007 to 31 April 2008. These revealed that approximately £10,000 was due by way of VAT. Mr Panagopolous had not made any payment with the return but confirmed to the Tribunal that he could pay the liability during the current month. In those circumstances Mr Haley confirmed that the amount of the security required would be £3500 not £12,100. Mr Panagopolous confirmed that he would also be able to pay that amount. Mr Haley further confirmed that the two outstanding amounts of £2995.61, £21,446.90 arose from assessments raised by the Respondents as the Appellant had failed to lodge appropriate VAT returns for the periods in question. In light of the returns now submitted the Respondents would only require the sum of £3500 by way of security.

The decision

5The Tribunal has no alternative but to dismiss the appeal and to confirm that the Respondents acted reasonably in requesting the security of £12,100. In the light of the evidence to-day the tribunal hopes that Mr Panagopolous will pay the outstanding VAT and the £3,500 by way of security so that the Respondents can allow the Appellant to continue to operate as plumbing and heating engineers

6The Respondents did not ask for costs and none were awarded

David S. Porter

CHAIRMAN

Release Date: 27 June 2008

MAN/07/1394