A Soldier v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 388 (TC) (11 June 2012)

A Soldier v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 388 (TC) (11 June 2012)

The appellant, at the time of supply, had the necessary intention to remove the vehicle to Germany for final and permanent use, as supported by objective evidence. The subsequent change in posting was not foreseeable and did not affect the original intention. HMRC failed to identify statutory authority to demand VAT from the appellant personally. The supply was properly zero rated.

Citation
[2012] UKFTT 388
Parties
Appellant: A Soldier; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
11 June 2012
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
VAT Zero Rating, Intra EU Supply of New Means of Transport, Intention to Remove Goods, Status of Forces Agreement, BFG Registration
Tax Law European Union Law VAT Zero Rating Intra EU Supply of New Means of Transport Intention to Remove Goods Status of Forces Agreement BFG Registration

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A Soldier

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant had the requisite intention to remove the vehicle from the UK to Germany at the time of supply to qualify for UK VAT zero rating
  2. 2 Whether HMRC had legal authority to demand VAT from the appellant personally
  3. 3 Whether subsequent events affected the original intention and VAT treatment

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant, at the time of supply, had the necessary intention to remove the vehicle to Germany for final and permanent use, as supported by objective evidence. The subsequent change in posting was not foreseeable and did not affect the original intention. HMRC failed to identify statutory authority to demand VAT from the appellant personally. The supply was properly zero rated.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • HMRC's demand for VAT against the appellant is set aside.