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
-
Was a company buyback of EIS shares tax avoidance?
Two taxpayers used the “purchase of own shares” procedure to extract gains they’d made from enterprise investment scheme (EIS) shares. HMRC said this was unfair tax avoidance, the taxpayers disagreed. What did the Upper Tribunal decide?
-
HMRC’s new compliance check service
HMRC has published a collection of videos and notes to help if you’re picked for a compliance check. Is HMRC’s new service worth a look or is it just official propaganda?
-
Income sharing trouble for separated couple
After a couple separated one spouse received income from letting the property she jointly owned with her estranged spouse. HMRC taxed all the income on her. Was it right to do so or should her spouse have been taxed on half the income?