Arrow Leisure Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Gaming machine Licence Duty) [2016] UKFTT 360 (TC) (24 May 2016)

Arrow Leisure Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Gaming machine Licence Duty) [2016] UKFTT 360 (TC) (24 May 2016)

The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it held more licences than those identified by HMRC or that fewer B3 machines were deployed than HMRC asserted for most periods. However, for periods 1 to 4, the evidence showed fewer B3 machines were in place than assessed,...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2016] UKFTT 360
Parties
Appellant: Arrow Leisure Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
24 May 2016
Procedural Posture
Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part
Legal Topics
Amusement Machine Licence Duty, Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981, Licensing of Gaming Machines, Tax Assessments, Evidence Evaluation
Tax Law Gaming Law Amusement Machine Licence Duty Betting and Gaming Duties Act 1981 Licensing of Gaming Machines Tax Assessments Evidence Evaluation

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Arrow Leisure Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the number of Amusement Machine Licence Duty (AMLD) licences held by the Appellant was less than the number of B3 gaming machines deployed at B&N Regal (Abingdon) Ltd's premises during the relevant periods
  2. 2 Whether the assessment of £19,730 by HMRC was correct in light of the actual number of machines and licences

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that the Appellant failed to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that it held more licences than those identified by HMRC or that fewer B3 machines were deployed than HMRC asserted for most periods. However, for periods 1 to 4, the evidence showed fewer B3 machines were in place than assessed, reducing the licence deficit for those periods. The appeal succeeded in part for periods 1 to 4 and failed for the remainder.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part and dismissed in part

Orders

  • Assessment reduced for periods 1 to 4 to reflect lower number of B3 machines; otherwise, assessment upheld.