Hurstbourne Properties Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 38 (TC) (19 January 2010)

Hurstbourne Properties Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 38 (TC) (19 January 2010)

The Commissioners acted reasonably in exercising their discretion to deny input tax deduction due to lack of valid invoice and insufficient alternative evidence. The tribunal cannot substitute its own view unless the Commissioners’ decision was unreasonable, which it was not.

Citation
[2010] UKFTT 38
Parties
Appellant: Hurstbourne Properties Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 January 2010
Procedural Posture
Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT, Input Tax Deduction, Evidentiary Requirements, Commissioners' Discretion
Tax Law VAT Input Tax Deduction Evidentiary Requirements Commissioners' Discretion

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hurstbourne Properties Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Tax Appeal / First Tier Tribunal Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is the appellant entitled to deduct input tax where the supplier was not VAT registered and used a hijacked VAT number?
  2. 2 Was the Commissioners’ discretion to deny input tax deduction reasonably exercised?

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioners acted reasonably in exercising their discretion to deny input tax deduction due to lack of valid invoice and insufficient alternative evidence. The tribunal cannot substitute its own view unless the Commissioners’ decision was unreasonable, which it was not.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed