Robertson v Revenue & Customs [2010] UKFTT 102 (TC) (03 March 2010)
The Tribunal has no discretion to override the statutory three year cap in Section 80(4) VAT Act 1994; HMRC is only liable to refund VAT properly chargeable (5%) and not VAT overcharged at 17.5% for invoices outside the three year period. The appeal is dismissed as the law is clear and binding.
- Citation
- [2010] UKFTT 102 (TC)
- Parties
- Appellant: Ian Robertson; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT)
- Jurisdiction
- United Kingdom
- Judgment Date
- 03 March 2010
- Procedural Posture
- VAT Refund Appeal (diy Builders Scheme) / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Final Decision
- Outcome
- Appeal dismissed
- Legal Topics
- VAT, DIY Builders Scheme, Three Year Rule, VAT Refund, Residential Conversion, Reduced Rate VAT
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Ian Robertson
Appellant
The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT)
Respondents
Procedural Posture
VAT Refund Appeal (diy Builders Scheme) / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Final Decision
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the three year cap under Section 80(4) VAT Act 1994 can be rescinded or discretion applied to allow recovery of VAT overcharged beyond the three year period
- 2 Whether HMRC can refund VAT charged at the standard rate (17.5%) instead of the reduced rate (5%) for invoices outside the three year limit
Ratio Decidendi
The Tribunal has no discretion to override the statutory three year cap in Section 80(4) VAT Act 1994; HMRC is only liable to refund VAT properly chargeable (5%) and not VAT overcharged at 17.5% for invoices outside the three year period. The appeal is dismissed as the law is clear and binding.
Court Disposition
Appeal dismissed
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment