Arkzone Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 129 (TC) (16 June 2009)

Arkzone Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 129 (TC) (16 June 2009)

The Commissioners' decision to require security from Arkzone Ltd was reasonable given the director's involvement in previous companies with poor VAT compliance and significant unpaid liabilities. The amount of security required was also reasonable based on the information available at the time.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 129
Parties
Appellant: Arkzone Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (VAT)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 June 2009
Procedural Posture
VAT Security Requirement Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Security Requirement, Protection of Revenue, Company Compliance History
Tax Law VAT Security Requirement Protection of Revenue Company Compliance History

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Arkzone Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (VAT)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Security Requirement Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requirement for security under VATA 1994 Sch. 11 para 4(2) was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioners took into account irrelevant or failed to consider relevant matters
  3. 3 Whether the amount of security required was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioners' decision to require security from Arkzone Ltd was reasonable given the director's involvement in previous companies with poor VAT compliance and significant unpaid liabilities. The amount of security required was also reasonable based on the information available at the time.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Requirement to provide security in the amount of £5,185 upheld