Savager v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 168 (TC) (05 February 2014)

Savager v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 168 (TC) (05 February 2014)

HMRC's refusal to apply the statutory exception from VAT registration was not reasonably made as they failed to consider the correct date and all relevant evidence, but even if they had, the evidence available at the relevant date would not have satisfied them that Mr Savagar's turnover would not exceed the threshold. Therefore, the decision would inevitably have been the same and the appeal is dismissed.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 168
Parties
Appellant: Jonathan Savagar; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
05 February 2014
Procedural Posture
VAT Registration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Registration, Statutory Exception From Registration, Reasonableness of HMRC Decision, Retrospective Application of Exception
Tax Law VAT Registration Statutory Exception From Registration Reasonableness of HMRC Decision Retrospective Application of Exception

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

Parties

Jonathan Savagar

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's refusal to apply the statutory exception from VAT registration under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 VATA 1994 was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether HMRC would inevitably have made the same decision if proper evidence at the relevant date was considered

Ratio Decidendi

HMRC's refusal to apply the statutory exception from VAT registration was not reasonably made as they failed to consider the correct date and all relevant evidence, but even if they had, the evidence available at the relevant date would not have satisfied them that Mr Savagar's turnover would not exceed the threshold. Therefore, the decision would inevitably have been the same and the appeal is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed