COMPLIANCE
Early PAYE returns met with a late filing penalty
Justine Riccomini FFTA AIPA Chartered MCIPD ChFCIPP, head of taxation, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), discusses the 2022 case of Quayviews Limited v HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC)
How early is ‘early’? By way of background, the employer in question reacted to a previous reprimand from HMRC for late filing its real time information (RTI) returns by batch-filing its RTI returns for 2020/21 in a single submission, three months in advance. The guidance says that RTI must be completed ‘on or before the payment date’ but fails to define how far in advance ‘before’ is. Readers may wonder how an employer might be able to calculate payroll so far in advance of payday, but it if the employer knows what the pay figures are going to be for future pay periods and has up to date tax codes, it’s reasonable to assume they can carry out the calculations well in advance. However, in this case, the early batch filing threw up problems with HMRC’s computer systems. The employer received a note to say the submissions had been sent successfully, but it appears they weren’t processed correctly once received. As a result, we now know that it isn’t possible to make early RTI returns earlier than the beginning of the tax month to which the pay relates. What happened next? The employer received three £100 late filing penalties and HMRC denied having received the returns – a stance which it changed at the tribunal hearing. However, HMRC stood its ground that the returns had been received ‘too early’ and were thus not received ‘at the right time’. HMRC denied the employer had a ‘reasonable excuse’, which would extinguish the penalties altogether. This was because the
Inconsistent wording – the twist in the tale There are two different references to when RTI returns must be submitted. One is the well-known ‘on or before the payment date’ in legislation and guidance, which most employment tax and payroll professionals are very familiar with. The other, less well- known reference is in terms of application of penalties, which isn’t in guidance (other than in the Compliance Handbook at CH62820), but in legislation at Finance Act 2009, Schedule 55 Paragraph 6C. The wording, ‘If P fails during a tax month to make a return on or before the filing date, P is liable to a penalty under this paragraph in respect of that month’ – appears to infer that a return can be made during any tax month which precedes the payment date. This might mean that, in fact, the question of reasonable excuse was not even in point. Conclusion Apart from wondering how this case got as far as the FTT, there must be concern around the HMRC internal processes and the initial denial that the returns had even been received. Why was the education letter not sufficiently well worded to eliminate any possible areas for misunderstanding? And why did HMRC not consider the wording of its own legislative provisions and guidance before proceeding to the tribunal? n
employer had previously received (and were therefore assumed to have read) the so-called ‘education letter’ associated with the previous incidence of late filing penalties, which demonstrates how to file an RTI return correctly. It was therefore for the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) to establish whether the employer had acted reasonably, and if they had a sufficient degree of ignorance to be unaware that early filing wasn’t permitted. The tribunal’s deliberations The FTT reviewed the education letter, as well as other correspondence, and determined there was nothing in any of the correspondence which clearly explained that early filing, such as this employer had carried out, wasn’t acceptable. The guidance is clear on the latest accepted date of submission, but not clear on the earliest date, stating only that returns must be submitted ‘on or before the payment date’, except in the case of making an RTI submission in one tax year that belongs in the next tax year, which is prohibited. The FTT therefore concluded that ‘HMRC’s own guidance would indicate to a reasonable taxpayer that it is possible to file returns early’. Reasonable excuse: upheld The tribunal decided the lack of clear guidance, together with the mixed-up notion that a successful submission is only successful because it’s been received by HMRC but not been processed, was sufficient to uphold the grounds of reasonable excuse by the employer, and thus the penalties were dismissed.
Links corner: The details of the case can be found here: http://ow.ly/rrbv50LB23B. The Finance Act 2009 can be located here: http://ow.ly/SnzO50LB25C.
| Professional in Payroll, Pensions and Reward | December 2022 – January 2023 | Issue 86 18
Made with FlippingBook - Online magazine maker