Carbondesk Group PLC v Revenue & Customs (VAT - ASSESSMENTS : Time limits) [2015] UKFTT 367 (TC) (27 July 2015)

Carbondesk Group PLC v Revenue & Customs (VAT - ASSESSMENTS : Time limits) [2015] UKFTT 367 (TC) (27 July 2015)

The assessment was made within one year of the assessing officer receiving, in her opinion, the last piece of evidence sufficient to justify the assessment (the additional due diligence material on Pan Energy and Winnington). The officer's decision to delay the assessment until receipt of this material was not perverse or wholly unreasonable. Therefore, the assessment was not out of time under s 73(6)(b) VATA 1994.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 367 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Carbondesk Group PLC; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 July 2015
Procedural Posture
VAT Assessment Appeal / Preliminary Issue on Time Limits for Assessment
Outcome
Appeal on preliminary issue dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Assessments, Time Limits, Input Tax Credit, Fraudulent Evasion of VAT, Kittel Principle
Tax Law VAT Assessments Time Limits Input Tax Credit Fraudulent Evasion of VAT Kittel Principle

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Carbondesk Group PLC

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Assessment Appeal / Preliminary Issue on Time Limits for Assessment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the VAT assessment was made out of time under s 73(6)(b) VATA 1994
  2. 2 Whether HMRC had sufficient evidence to justify the assessment more than one year before it was made
  3. 3 Whether the officer's decision to delay the assessment was perverse or wholly unreasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The assessment was made within one year of the assessing officer receiving, in her opinion, the last piece of evidence sufficient to justify the assessment (the additional due diligence material on Pan Energy and Winnington). The officer's decision to delay the assessment until receipt of this material was not perverse or wholly unreasonable. Therefore, the assessment was not out of time under s 73(6)(b) VATA 1994.

Court Disposition

Appeal on preliminary issue dismissed

Orders

  • The assessment was made in time under s 73(6)(b) VATA 1994.