Thomas v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 83 (TC) (10 July 2009)

Thomas v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 83 (TC) (10 July 2009)

There was a binding agreement between the parties under Reg.67(1) VAT Regs for a 30/70 standard to zero-rated split for Delis 1-3, making the Appellant's returns for those outlets correct and precluding assessments under s.73(1) VATA for those periods. For Delis 4-6 and Bar Capitale 1-2, the Tribunal found the Commissioners' best judgment assessments, based on two days' invigilation and available records, were reasonable and not capricious or wholly unreasonable.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 83
Parties
Appellant: Mithras (Wine Bars) Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
10 July 2009
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Substantive Judgment
Outcome
Appeal partly allowed
Legal Topics
Value Added Tax, Best Judgment Assessment, Retail Schemes, Zero/standard Rated Supplies, Binding Agreements With HMRC
Tax Law VAT Value Added Tax Best Judgment Assessment Retail Schemes Zero/standard Rated Supplies Binding Agreements With HMRC

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 4 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mithras (Wine Bars) Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Substantive Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there was a binding agreement on zero/standard rated supplies split under Reg.67(1) VAT Regs
  2. 2 Whether the VAT assessments were made to the best judgment of the Commissioners
  3. 3 Whether two days of invigilation is sufficient for best judgment assessment

Ratio Decidendi

There was a binding agreement between the parties under Reg.67(1) VAT Regs for a 30/70 standard to zero-rated split for Delis 1-3, making the Appellant's returns for those outlets correct and precluding assessments under s.73(1) VATA for those periods. For Delis 4-6 and Bar Capitale 1-2, the Tribunal found the Commissioners' best judgment assessments, based on two days' invigilation and available records, were reasonable and not capricious or wholly unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Appeal partly allowed

Orders

  • Assessments for Delis 1-3 set aside; Appellant's VAT returns for those outlets stand.
  • Assessments for Delis 4-6 and Bar Capitale 1-2 upheld as made to best judgment.