Carton v Revenue & Customs (VAT - one or two businesses) [2019] UKFTT 549 (TC) (28 August 2019)

Carton v Revenue & Customs (VAT - one or two businesses) [2019] UKFTT 549 (TC) (28 August 2019)

The evidence demonstrated that the cafe and restaurant were operated as two distinct businesses with separate staff, management, financial arrangements, and economic risk, despite some shared facilities and documentation in Mr Caton’s name. The facts supporting separate businesses outweighed those suggesting joint...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] UKFTT 549
Parties
Appellant: Charles John Caton; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
28 August 2019
Procedural Posture
VAT Registration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
VAT Registration, Artificial Separation of Business, Taxable Person, Business Independence
Tax Law VAT Registration Artificial Separation of Business Taxable Person Business Independence

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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Charles John Caton

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Registration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the cafe and restaurant operated by Mr Caton and his wife were separate businesses for VAT purposes or a single business under common ownership

Ratio Decidendi

The evidence demonstrated that the cafe and restaurant were operated as two distinct businesses with separate staff, management, financial arrangements, and economic risk, despite some shared facilities and documentation in Mr Caton’s name. The facts supporting separate businesses outweighed those suggesting joint ownership, and HMRC’s failure to engage with Mrs Caton meant their decision was not based on a full understanding of the facts. The appeal is allowed and the associated penalty is quashed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • Associated penalty quashed