Adelekun v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 102 (TC) (20 January 2014)

Adelekun v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 102 (TC) (20 January 2014)

The appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he was engaged in making taxable supplies during the relevant period. The majority of his activities were logistical services for which he did not charge, and the available evidence did not demonstrate that his business was predominantly concerned with making taxable supplies for consideration. Therefore, the business test for VAT registration and input tax recovery was not met.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 102
Parties
Appellant: Andrew Adelekun; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
20 January 2014
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Registration, Input Tax Claims, Taxable Supplies, Burden of Proof
Tax Law VAT Registration Input Tax Claims Taxable Supplies Burden of Proof

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andrew Adelekun

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was making taxable supplies during the relevant period
  2. 2 Whether the appellant is entitled to VAT registration and input tax recovery

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to provide sufficient documentary evidence to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that he was engaged in making taxable supplies during the relevant period. The majority of his activities were logistical services for which he did not charge, and the available evidence did not demonstrate that his business was predominantly concerned with making taxable supplies for consideration. Therefore, the business test for VAT registration and input tax recovery was not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • HMRC's decision to de-register the appellant for VAT is upheld
  • HMRC's refusal of the input tax claim for the period is confirmed