HMRC concedes on penalties for late self-assessment
For weeks tax experts have been pressuring HMRC to scrap penalties for late filing of 2019/20 self-assessment tax returns. Until now HMRC has refused. Today it’s made a partial concession. What’s the full story?
The pressure has been mounting on HMRC and the government to give a general amnesty for taxpayers who submit their 2019/20 self-assessment tax return online later than the usual filing deadline of 31 January 2021. HMRC hasn’t gone that far but has agreed that anyone who can’t file their return by the deadline won’t receive a late filing penalty if they file online by 28 February.
In its statement, HMRC hasn’t mentioned the penalties charged for those who were late submitting their 2019/20 paper self-assessment tax return which was due by 31 October. We’ll have to wait to see if it decides to retrospectively cancel some or all of them.
The announcement doesn’t change any statutory right to have a late filing penalty canceled if the taxpayer have a reasonable excuse for submitting their tax return after the deadline. This means if anyone can’t file your return by 28 February they still have the right to appeal against the £100 penalty that HMRC will automatically issue.
Related Topics
-
Mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind delayed
The government has revised plans to introduce the mandatory payrolling of benefits in kind from 6 April 2027, which will now be limited to company cars, vans, fuel and medical benefits. What's the full story?
-
Personal vs company donation to charity
You’re an owner manager and want to make a £5,000 donation to a local charity. You’ve claimed income tax relief under the gift aid scheme for smaller amounts but could it be more tax efficient to make the donation via the company?
-
Uber loses VAT margin scheme appeal
The Court of Appeal has ruled that Uber cannot use the Tour Operators Margin Scheme (TOMS) when accounting for VAT on its ride-hailing services. The decision could have significant implications for businesses that act as intermediaries when supplying services to consumers. What was the dispute about?