VAT Cases & News

In HMRC v Elbrook (Cash & Carry) Limited [2017] UKUT 0181 the Upper Tribunal (UT) allowed a VAT hardship application even though the taxpayer had a number of valuable investments.

In Deezer Limited v HMRC [2017] TC05691 the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that taking out a lease on premises amounted to a TOGC for the pruposes of compulsory VAT registration under s49 VATA 1994.

In Mark Young T/A The St Helens v HMRC [2012] TC02371 the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) found that the grant of a lease over a restaurant was a transfer of a going concern for VAT purposes, as a result the purchaser was required to be VAT registered.

In Silvergate Support Services Limited v HMRC [2017] TC05854 the First-Tier Tribunal (FTT) did not accept that payment of VAT to HMRC's bank account constituted a notification of an underassessment.

In Colaingrove Limited v HMRC [2017] EWCA Civ 332 the Court of Appeal held that the reduced rate of VAT could not be applied to electricity supplied as part of a holiday let.

In James Hillis v HMRC [2013] TC02611 a penalty for failure to notify liability for VAT was quashed by the FTT: HMRC failed to consider the compliance intention of the law.

• A solicitor setting up a new practice failed to realise that turnover for VAT registration purposes should be calculated on a rolling basis. He was late in registering for VAT as a result.
• HMRC issued a late registration penalty under schedule 41 FA 2008.
• The taxpayer appealed he claimed that he had made an honest mistake and that there were special circumstances.

The FTT quashed the penalty: it was satisfied that HMRC’s decision on special circumstances in the appeal was flawed in that HMRC did not consider whether the penalty met the clear compliance intention of the law having regard to the Appellant’s individual circumstances.

Links

How to appeal a tax penalty (subscriber version)

James Hillis v HMRC [2013] TC02611