Tag Archives: penalties

CVC VAT Focus 31 May 2018

31st May 2018

HMRC NEWS

Imports and VAT (Notice 702)

One must now report imports that are over £873 in value on a Single Administrative Document.

 

OTHER VAT NEWS

We understand that HMRC has begun to contact firms directly regarding the VAT treatment of electronic searches following the Brabners LLP VAT case summarised on our website. The Law Society has issued guidance which can be viewed here.

 

CVC BLOG

VAT recovery, supplying insurance and the benefits of customer location

VAT exempt supplies do not normally provide a right to reclaim VAT on costs incurred in making such supplies. However, certain supplies that would ordinarily give no right to input VAT recovery may be ‘specified’ to do so when the customer is located outside the EU. Follow the link to read our most recent blog, by Robert Thorpe, which explains this further.

 

CASE REVIEW

CJEU

1. Retrospective application of VAT exemption schemes

In this matter, the domestic Courts of Hungary ask whether EU law precludes national legislation prohibiting retroactive application of a special VAT exemption scheme for small traders to an eligible, taxable person but who did not declare the commencement of his taxable activities and did not, therefore, opt for the application of that scheme.

 

In the main proceedings, Mr. Dávid Vámos had made taxable supplies from 2007 until January 2014 seeking to support his usual income. However, he failed to register this activity with the tax authorities, also failing to raise invoices and keep receipts. Following an investigation into his tax affairs, Mr Vámos registered for VAT on 22 January 2014 and opted for application of the exemption. A secondary investigation by the domestic tax authorities revealed a VAT debt. The tax authority took the view that national law did not allow retrospective application of the option to be exempt from VAT and so imposed the relevant penalties.

 

The question before the Court is whether national legislation preventing the retrospective application of a VAT exemption scheme is contrary to EU law. Mr Vámos contended that he should have been asked if he wished to retrospectively exercise the option when he registered as he was eligible for the scheme.

 

The Opinion of the Court in this instance is that, given exemption can lead to mixed results for businesses, it cannot be assumed that all taxable persons entitled to an exemption intend to opt for it. Taking into account the effect retrospective application of the exemption would have on previous transactions and other businesses, the Court held it reasonable that the domestic tax authorities require taxable persons to make an express choice of the VAT regime they wish to have applied if it is different to the default regime.

 

The Court also agreed with Hungarian tax authorities that allowing taxable persons who failed to declare the commencement of their activities to retrospectively exercise that option would give an unfair advantage, distorting competition in their favour, breaking the principle of fiscal neutrality. Concluding, it is asserted that EU law does not preclude national legislation prohibiting retrospective application of special exemption schemes, even in cases where the taxable person fulfils all the material conditions for using the scheme.

 

CVC Comment: This case should serve as a reminder of the importance of considering tax and legal obligations before, as opposed to after, beginning to carry on what is or could be considered to be a trade.

2. Divergent criminal thresholds for taxation

Mauro Scialdone

This request for a preliminary ruling concerned interpretation of the EU law relating to criminal penalties for failing to pay VAT within the time limit prescribed by domestic (Italian) law. The General Provisions of the PFI Convention provide that in cases of serious fraud involving more than €50,000, penalties including imprisonment must be available to Member States.

 

Italian law provided for the penalty of imprisonment in cases where the taxpayer failed to pay, within the relevant time limits, any VAT owed over €50,000. The same penalties applied to other taxes such as income tax. Subsequent updates to Italian law saw the threshold for imprisonment increase for failure to pay VAT to €250,000.00 and for income tax to €150,000.00.

 

Whilst much consideration was given to other issues, the questions relating to VAT before the CJEU concerned whether EU law precludes domestic legislation from prescribing different thresholds for criminalising failure to pay VAT and income tax. Consideration was given to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence. The Italian authorities contended that as the two taxes have different collection and administrative regimes and differing degrees of identifiability of fraud, the distinction in penalties was justified.

 

It was held that neither principle precludes domestic legislation such as that in the main proceedings which provides that failure to pay, within the given time limit, the VAT resulting from the annual tax return constitutes a criminal offence only when the amount of unpaid VAT exceeds €250,000.00 whereas a threshold of €150,000.00 applies to failure to pay income tax.

 

CVC Comment: This case makes clear that seriously non-compliant taxpayers can face custodial sentences as well as fines. It highlights some of the differences between direct and indirect tax regimes and the judgment reflects an understanding of this.

Upper Tribunal

 

3.Student Accommodation: Zero-rating Certificate

This appeal concerned the liability of supplies made by Summit Electrical Installations Limited (Summit) as a sub-contractor to a development of student accommodation. Create Construction (Create) had appointed Summit after receiving a zero-rating certificate from the developer stating that the development was for a relevant residential purpose (RRP). As the certificate stated RRP, HMRC contended that only supplies by Create to the developer could be zero-rated and Summit’s supplies should be standard rated as they were sub-contractors. Summit refuted this stating that they could rely on zero-rating provisions as the supplies were made in the course of the construction of a building designed as a number of dwellings.

 

The FTT agreed with Summit, also considering an issue of planning conditions which HMRC contended prohibited zero-rating; as the buildings must be let to students of certain Universities, there was a prohibition of separate use or disposal of the flats. The FTT dismissed this as the flats could be sold separately so long as students lived in them.

 

HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against the decision in relation to the prohibition of separate use or disposal, asserting that the development failed to qualify as “dwellings” due to the alleged prohibition on separate use or disposal. The UT found that, in accordance with case law, for there to be a prohibition on separate use for the purposes at hand there must be a prohibition on the use of the premises separate from the use of some other specific land, a connection to the Universities mentioned in the planning consent was not sufficient. The UT upheld the decision of the FTT and dismissed HMRC’s appeal, allowing Summit’s supplies to be zero-rated as in the course of construction of a building to be used as a number of dwellings.

 

CVC Comment: This is a positive result for Summit as well as, potentially, for other sub-contractors appointed by Create. This judgment shows the importance of planning before taking on any development projects. Had the Tribunal found differently, Summit and other contractors may have been burdened with a VAT debt.

 

First Tier Tribunal

 

4. Adjustments, agreements and time limits

HMRC sought here to strike out an appeal by Buckingham Bingo Limited (BBL) on the grounds that BBL were appealing against a letter from HMRC which did not contain any appealable decision. In 2012, BBL submitted a VAT return which included a reclaim for £1,616,384.44 overpaid output VAT. HMRC promptly issued a decision denying this reclaim and BBL did not appeal on the basis of costs.

 

Following developments in case law (KE Entertainments Ltd) BBL wrote to HMRC seeking to recover the original amount. HMRC replied on 5 January 2017 stating that they had already ruled on this matter and that BBL had decided not to appeal. It was also noted that there are time limits on adjustments to VAT returns, out of which BBL found itself.

 

The FTT agreed with HMRC that the time limits relating to adjustments applied and that the letter dated 5 January 2017 did not contain an appealable decision but more reaffirmed an earlier one. BBL argued that it would be unfair if it were not allowed to make an adjustment in the same way as Carlton Clubs and KE Entertainment Limited and so should be granted an extension to make an appeal. The Tribunal dismissed this, placing great weight on the need for finality in decisions and stressing that BBL had already stated in 2012 that it would not appeal the original decision based on costs.

 

The Tribunal agreed with HMRC, on all grounds, and BBL’s appeal was struck out. It is not granted any extension to amend its notice of appeal.

 

CVC Comment: It is essential to be aware of all relevant time limits when it comes to making adjustments to VAT returns. This case shows that the Tribunal takes due process seriously and will not agree with the taxpayer because their position might seem unfair. It is also a useful reminder to make sure all communications should be carefully and appropriately worded to prevent interpretive issues arising.

 

5. Appeal by post: letter not received by Tribunal

This decision relates to an appeal made by Porter & Co (Porter) challenging VAT surcharge liability for VAT periods 05/13 and 11/13, of which it was informed on 4 March 2014. Porter was originally given the right to appeal the surcharge notices within 30 days of receipt.

 

Porter apparently responded with a notice of appeal on 2 April 2014, however the Tribunal has no record of having received this letter. Indeed, a notice was received but on 31 July 2017. As well as relevant case law, legislation dictates that when “serving” something by post, the service takes place at the time of postage so long as the postage is done correctly. Whilst the appeal was not sent tracked or special delivery, this is not a legal requirement. On the balance of probabilities, the Tribunal found in favour of Porter but in determining when this would have been received, it was concluded that the appeal, had it arrived, would have arrived a day out of time anyway.

 

The Tribunal needed to consider, therefore, whether permission should be given for the notice of appeal to be given late. As it was only one day out of time and in the interest of not offering prejudice to HMRC, the Tribunal were inclined to give permission for the late notice and held in favour of Porter.

 

CVC Comment: The Tribunal gave this ruling a caveat that, had they not found the original notice for appeal was only one day out of time, it would not have been inclined to give permission. Had the Tribunal ruled it received the notice on 31 July 2017 then it would have been three years late and this would have been too long. This is a demonstration that the Tribunal will take timing and intention into account when dealing with taxpayers.

 

CVC VAT Newsletter for Charities – May 2018

29th May 2018

Thank you for ‘opting in’ to receive our VAT & Charities newsletter. Following the recent changes surrounding personal data we are grateful for your continued interest in our circulation. We will continue to report on interesting cases, changes in HMRC policy and other topics that we hope are informative.

Please do not hesitate to contact us at any time should you wish to discuss any VAT matters. 

This VAT & Charities newsletter comments on the following:

  1. Input VAT recovery: VAT incurred in relation to investment activity
  2. Zero-rating the construction of a relevant charitable purpose building
  3. Printed matter: zero-rated goods or standard rated service?
  4. Whether local authority received services from its wholly owned not-for-profit company
  5. Application of penalties by HMRC
  6. Permission to appeal out of time 

Court of Appeal 

1. Input VAT recovery: VAT incurred in relation to investment activity 

The Court of Appeal has referred matters raised in The Chancellor, Master and Scholars of the University of Cambridge case to the CJEU for guidance. The Court of Appeal proposes to ask the CJEU for guidance on the following:

  • Where management fees are incurred in relation to a non-taxable investment activity is it possible to make the necessary link between those costs and the economic activities which are subsidised with the investment income?
  • The Court of Appeal also seeks confirmation that its reading of the Sveda decision is correct and that no distinction is to be made between exempt and non-taxable transactions for deciding whether input tax is deductible.

CVC comment: the First Tier and Upper Tribunal previously ruled that VAT incurred in relation to investment management fees could be treated as residual input tax and recoverable to the extent that income derived supports taxable business activities. This is consistent with HMRC’s previously adopted policy and CVC’s experience. If you would like to discuss the recovery if VAT incurred by your organisation please do not hesitate to contact CVC. 

2. Zero-rating the construction of a relevant charitable purpose building

Wakefield College, a charity, appealed against the Upper Tribunal’s decision that construction services provided to it in the course of constructing a new building were not zero-rated for VAT purposes. The supply in the course of construction of a building intended for use for a relevant charitable purpose may be zero-rated. HMRC accept that up to 5% use of the building may be used for purposes other than relevant charitable (i.e. for business activities).

The issue in this case was whether subsidised fees charged to students prevents the zero-rate from applying because the subsidised income represents a business activity.

The Court of Appeal found that the supply of courses by Wakefield College to students paying subsidised fees is a business activity. The Court of Appeal provided the following reasons for its decisions:

  • The sole activity of the College is the provision of educational courses, this is not an ancillary activity.
  • The provision of courses to students paying subsidised fees is significant.
  • The fees paid by subsidised students are significant in amount.
  • The subsidised fees made a significant contribution to the cost of providing courses.
  • The level of course fees was fixed by reference to the cost of the courses.
  • The fees were not fixed by reference to the means of the student.

The College’s appeal was dismissed. 

CVC comment: Wakefield College previously won its case before the First Tier Tribunal; however, HMRC succeeded in appealing the FTT’s decision before the Upper Tribunal. This decision provides further clarification and indicators of ‘non-business’ activities for VAT purposes. The Court of Appeal considered the CJEU decisions in Borsele and Finland, as well as the decision in Longridge on the Thames.

First Tier Tribunal

3. Printed matter: Zero-rated goods or standard rated service?

The Tribunal had to decide if supplies by Paragon Customer Communications Limited (Paragon) to Direct Line Insurance Services (DLIS) amounted to, as Paragon contended, a single supply of booklets comprising of predominantly zero-rated matter or, as HMRC contended, a supply of services of which booklets were not a predominant element. It is also asserted by HMRC that some of the booklets supplied as zero-rated were in fact not supplies of printed matter and so should have been standard-rated.

Paragon supplied various items of printed matter in relation to insurance documents for DLIS including advertising, standard Terms and Conditions, appraisals and reminders. The question came before the Tribunal as a result of a VAT assessment on Paragon who HMRC contended was making a single, standard-rated supply of services based on the preparation and packaging involved in the process of supplying the products, the envelopes used and separate documents which were not part of the main supply i.e. the appraisals and terms and conditions documents. Paragon appealed this assessment by HMRC on the grounds that the supplies made were one composite supply of zero-rated booklets. This was, in essence, a question of single or multiple supply.

Whilst the Tribunal considered various cases, including the single supply criteria in Card Protection Plan and issues of divisibility considered in Levob Verzekeringen BV, the conclusion of the Tribunal was relatively clear; Paragon is successful in its appeal against the assessment. It is held that packaging and delivery of the disputed documents is, in this instance, considered to be a single, zero-rated supply of booklets.  

CVC Comment: this decision may have a wider implication, in particular for charities. Many charities cannot recover VAT incurred because of their non-business and/or VAT exempt activities. HMRC changed its policy some years ago with respect to the VAT liability of direct mailing services (standard rated). This decision may call into questions HMRC’s policy. It will be interesting to see if this decision is appealed by HMRC to the Upper Tribunal.

Court of Justice of European Union (CJEU) 

4. Whether local authority received services from its wholly owned not-for-profit company

A recent Hungarian case (Nagyszénás Településszolgáltatási Nonprofit Kft., C-182/17) before the CJEU concerned supplies between a local government (municipality) and its wholly owned non-profit making organisation (NFP). The NFP, under contract with the municipality, undertook to carry out certain public tasks such as management of housing and other property, management of local public roads etc. The NFP did not issue invoices to the municipality for the services nor did it charge VAT. The NFP argued that the contract did not constitute a contract for the provision of services. The NFP also argued it was a “body governed by public law” and, as such, if it is supplying services those services are VAT exempt.

The CJEU found that where a company performs public tasks under a contract with a municipality this constitutes a taxable supply of services subject to VAT. In addition, the NFP did not meet the conditions to be classified as a “body governed by public law”, it has none of the rights and powers of a local authority. The services supplied do not fall within the VAT exemption for bodies governed by public law. 

CVC comment: many local authorities sub-contract various responsibilities to charities and not-for profit organisations. Increasingly, charities enter into service agreements as opposed to receiving grant funding. It is important to consider the VAT implications of such contracts and agreements. If your organisation is entering into similar arrangements and the VAT treatment is not clear please do not hesitate to contact CVC.

First Tier Tribunal 

5. Application of penalties by HMRC 

Over recent years we have seen a growing trend by HMRC to apply penalties to VAT errors made by taxpayers. In the case of Curtises Limited we saw the interaction of the rarely used annual accounting scheme and the leveraging of a penalty by HMRC.

Curtises Limited was required to submit its VAT return covering the period 1 January to 31 December 2016 no later than 28 February 2017. It failed to do so and, as is usual practice for payment traders (those usually paying VAT to HMRC in each VAT accounting period) HMRC raised a central assessment on 17 March 2017. The central assessment issued was in the sum £35,578. The taxpayer’s payments on account during the year totaled £32,499. However, on 5 April 2017 Curtises Limited made a payment of £46,131.

HMRC contacted the company in May 2017 requesting submission of the VAT return. This was duly submitted (and paid) the following month with a net liability of £215,233.43 owing to HMRC.

HMRC treated the receipt of the VAT return as prompted disclosure i.e. the taxpayer did not submit its VAT return by the due date. It only did so following receipt of a centrally generated assessment by HMRC. HMRC issued a penalty calculated at 15% of the potential lost revenue. This was calculated as follows:

  • Actual net VAT liability owing to HMRC: £215,233
  • HMRC central assessment: £35,578
  • Difference £179,655 x 15% = £26,948.25

The taxpayer lost its appeal. It explained that the business had expanded rapidly and it had found the growth difficult to deal with. It had a good tax compliance record generally; however, the judge found in favour of HMRC. The judge did comment that the quantum of the penalty for “a fairly minor mistake” did appear “harsh” but the law had been correctly applied.

CVC comment: this case deals not just with penalties but annual accounting and HMRC’s issuing of central assessments. Our recommendation is where a charity has a problem in submitting accurate VAT returns that the matter is pro-actively managed and dialogue entered into as soon as possible. In this case, the penalty may have been mitigated in full, or in part, if the taxpayer had contacted HMRC sooner.

First Tier Tribunal 

6. Permission to appeal out of time

Newcastle Under Lyme College (NULC) applied to the Tribunal for permission to bring a late appeal against a decision of HMRC to deny that construction supplies received during 2009 and 2010 should be treated as zero-rated.

NULC seeks to appeal HMRC’s decision dated 23 September 2014. NULC’s notice of appeal was filed on 6 February 2017, over two years out of time. NULC contends that a portion of the construction services supplied and received should be zero-rated on the basis that a portion of the building was intended for use solely for a relevant charitable purpose (RCP), namely, use by a charity otherwise than in the course or furtherance of business. This is on the basis that income received from ‘part-funded’ students is a non-business activity. There is litigation pending in this area in a number of cases, including Wakefield College which is the subject of an appeal to the Court of Appeal. Both NULC and HMRC agree that the case will be unarguable if the Court of Appeal upholds the Upper Tribunal’s decision in Wakefield College.

The Tribunal took into account the amount of VAT at stake in this appeal, why the delay in appealing occurred, as well as the fact that NULC has not presented a consistent case. The Tribunal made the point that permission to appeal out of time should only be granted exceptionally and it should not be granted routinely. Nevertheless, the Tribunal granted permission to NULC to bring a late appeal. The Tribunal considered this appropriate in order to deal justly with this case.

CVC comment: as the Tribunal has granted permission to bring a late appeal, NULC’s appeal will be stood behind the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Wakefield College. Wakefield College has lost its appeal before the Court of Appeal. Therefore, it seems likely NULC’s appeal will also fail. Nevertheless, this case presents an interesting insight into the matters the Tribunal consider in granting permission to appeal out of time. Any appeal lodged must be done so within strict time limits.

 

 

Constable VAT Consultancy LLP (CVC) is a specialist independent VAT practice with offices in London and East Anglia. We work together with many charities and not-for-profit bodies ranging from national charities, those working overseas, and regionally based local organisations. CVC has a nationwide client base. 

We understand that charities wish to achieve their objectives whilst satisfying the legal requirements placed upon them. Charities may be liable to account for VAT on supplies made and VAT will be payable on certain expenditure. As irrecoverable VAT represents an absolute cost to most charities, regardless of their VAT registration status, there is a need to review the position regularly and carefully. We offer advice with planning initiatives, technical compliance issues, complex transactions, help with innovative ideas on VAT saving opportunities, and liaising with HMRC. 

If you would like to discuss how VAT impacts on your organisation please contact Stewart Henry,  Laura Beckett or Sophie Cox on 020 7830 9669, 01206 321029 or via email on stewart.henry@ukvatadvice.com, laura.beckett@ukvatadvice.com and  sophie.cox@ukvatadvice.com.  Alternatively, please visit our website at www.ukvatadvice.com where you can view some of the services we offer in more detail and subscribe to our free general and regular VAT alerts and updates. Visit our website for current news updates. You can also follow CVC on Twitter. 

This newsletter is intended as a general guide to current VAT issues and is not intended to be a comprehensive statement of the law. No liability is accepted for the opinions it contains or for any errors or omissions. CVC cannot accept responsibility for loss incurred by any person, company or entity as a result of acting, or failing to act, on any material in this newsletter. Specialist VAT advice should always be sought in relation to your particular circumstance.

CVC VAT Focus 12 April 2018

12th April 2018


PARTIAL EXEMPTION

It is around this time of year that those businesses that are partially exempt are required to calculate their annual adjustment.  This adjustment must be made in the VAT return period ending June/July or August but can be made in the prior period (March/April/May) if a business wishes.  CVC is able to calculate or review these annual adjustments for clients if required.

HMRC NEWS

VAT: road fuel scale charge tables

VAT Updated Valuation Table: Road Fuel Scale Charges effective from 1 May 2018 added to the page.

VAT Notice 700/11: cancelling your registration

This notice tells you when and how to cancel your VAT registration.

VAT Notice 700/1: should I be registered for VAT?

This notice cancels and replaces Notice 700/1 September 2016.

Apply for the Fulfilment House Due Diligence Scheme (Notice FH1)

Page updated with link to new application service and further information what information needed to apply to register.

 CVC BLOG

Sale of donated goods by a charity – an opportunity to reclaim VAT incurred

 

Where certain conditions are satisfied, the sale of donated goods by a charity is zero-rated for VAT purposes. This can be beneficial because no output VAT is due on the income generated by these sales but a right to input VAT recovery on associated costs arises.

CASE REVIEW

First Tier Tribunal

 

1. Reasonable Excuses?

 

In this instance the Tribunal heard an appeal from an individual, Mr. Phillip Ashley Legg against HMRC’s decision to impose various surcharges ranging from VAT accounting periods 12/05 to 12/14.
During this period, Mr Legg only made two payments from 14 September 2006 and 29 June 2012. Mr Legg sought to contend that he had a reasonable excuse for his behaviour in that he had contacted HMRC to establish a payment plan for the surcharges and by 2014 he had cleared all actual VAT arrears. Mr Legg relied heavily on the fact that his profits took a large drop in the period in question, owing to a rapid decline in his area of business.
Whilst the Tribunal accepted a sharp decline in the business had taken place, it still held that this was not a reasonable excuse as the down-turn took place over a number of years and Mr. Legg should have, as a prudent businessman, made adaptations to evolve and fortify himself against changing market conditions. The Tribunal were more sympathetic towards Mr Legg’s catastrophic hard drive errors which led to a severe loss of data. They also took into account that during the period in question, Mr Legg’s father was ill and Mr Legg played a large role in his care.
The important test in relation to a ‘reasonable excuse’ relates to whether or not the taxpayer has behaved reasonably in his or her circumstances. Whilst the Tribunal confirmed that a down-turn in business could not constitute a reasonable excuse, the death of a close relative and fatal computer crashes losing to loss of accounts can. For these reasons, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in half, cancelling a selection of those surcharges not relating to the decline in business activity.

2. Supply or unsolicited delivery

 

This appeal related to whether the applicant, Quality Engines Direct Ltd (QEDL), supplied silver ingots to Microring, a potential purchaser of the company. Whilst in the process of dealing with a transfer of his business, the proprietor (Mr. Rafiq) engaged with a purchaser (Mr. Healey) who immediately began treating the business as his own; making deposits and withdrawals and using the business address. HMRC questioned two invoices relating to the sale of silver from Mr. Rafiq to Mr. Healey which took place before the transfer of QEDL. The veracity of these invoices was denied by Mr. Rafiq, who denied any supply of silver was made to Microring or to Mr. Healey, or that QEDL makes supplies of silver at all, and that he owes no VAT on this alleged supply. He contended that the invoices raised by Microring are not genuine and there had been no silver trade activity with Microring at all.

Mr. Rafiq claimed that delivery of the silver to his business address was not sanctioned, the packages remained unopened as they were unsolicited and he informed Mr. Healey to remove the packages, which he did.

The Tribunal agreed on appeal with Mr. Rafiq that the delivery of silver was unsolicited, the invoices had been recreated by Mr. Healey on behalf of Microring. The Tribunal found that as the packages of silver were unsolicited, unopened and removed as a matter of urgency, that QEDL had not made a supply to Microring and Mr. Healey had in fact made the order.

3. Omitted sales and disallowed input tax

 

In this case, Mr. Paul Shore, trading as “DP Contractors”  disputed a decision by HMRC in relation to his 04/11 VAT return. Mr Shore submitted that in this period of trading he was owed a £3,025.60 VAT repayment. HMRC submitted that due to under-declared output VAT of £16,599.40 and over-declared input VAT, Mr. Shore in fact owed £14,605.52 to HMRC.

Mr. Shore traded as DP Contractors which he claimed HMRC had confused with D&P Contractors, a separate firm to which he was a partner alongside Mr. David MacMillan. D&P Contractors had tendered for a contract with Southern Electrical Contracting Limited (SEC) using Mr Macmillan’s VAT registration number as Mr. Shore was not, himself, registered for VAT. Whilst Mr Macmillan was taken ill, Mr. Shore continued to trade using the VAT number of D&P Contractors whilst establishing himself as a sole proprietor “DP Contractors”.

Mr MacMillan played no role in the business being done for SEC by Mr. Shore and ceased to trade with D&P Contractors owing to injury and received no payment from Mr. Shore for on-going work. D&P Contractors issued over 190 invoices to SEC without declaring these on VAT returns and could offer no reasonable explanation for this. Mr. Shore attempted to highlight some discrepancy between the names of the firms but, as the Tribunal found, the same VAT registration number and bank account were used in continuing the trade by Mr. Shore and that the suppressed sales were correctly assessed on Mr. Shore, despite his pleas that Mr. Macmillan was jointly responsible.

Irrecoverable input tax which had also been deducted by Mr. Shore for items such as power showers were also disallowed and a forgery was uncovered for the purchase of a lorry. The Tribunal dismissed all appeals by Mr. Shore and upholds the assessments in full in relation to the suppressed sales.