J & W Waste Services Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 315 (TC) (19 November 2009)

J & W Waste Services Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 315 (TC) (19 November 2009)

The Commissioners acted reasonably in requiring security from the Appellant due to its VAT defaults, the risk to the revenue evidenced by the history of associated companies, and the calculation of the security amount was reasonable. Prior provision of security does not preclude further security where circumstances warrant.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 315
Parties
Appellant: J & W Waste Services Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 November 2009
Procedural Posture
VAT Security Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Security Requirements, Reasonableness of Administrative Decisions, Phoenix Companies, Default on VAT Returns, Calculation of Security Amounts
Tax Law Administrative Law VAT Security Requirements Reasonableness of Administrative Decisions Phoenix Companies Default on VAT Returns Calculation of Security Amounts

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J & W Waste Services Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs (VAT)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Security Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Commissioners' decision to require security from the Appellant was reasonable under VATA 1994, Sch 11 para 4(2)
  2. 2 Whether the amount of security required was excessive or unreasonable
  3. 3 Whether prior provision of security precludes further security requirements

Ratio Decidendi

The Commissioners acted reasonably in requiring security from the Appellant due to its VAT defaults, the risk to the revenue evidenced by the history of associated companies, and the calculation of the security amount was reasonable. Prior provision of security does not preclude further security where circumstances warrant.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Appellant's appeal against the Security Notice is dismissed.