Drury v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 50 (TC) (16 April 2009)

Drury v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 50 (TC) (16 April 2009)

The appellant was liable to be registered for VAT from 1 September 2006 as his taxable supplies exceeded the threshold in July 2006, and the Commissioners lawfully refused exception from registration because, at the relevant date, there was no evidence that future turnover would fall below the deregistration threshold.

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 50
Parties
Appellant: Nicholas Paul Drury; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax)
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
16 April 2009
Procedural Posture
VAT Registration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Registration, Late Registration, Exception From Registration, Retrospective Registration, Turnover Threshold
Tax Law VAT Registration Late Registration Exception From Registration Retrospective Registration Turnover Threshold

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Nicholas Paul Drury

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax)

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Registration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Substantive Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was liable to be registered for VAT with effect from 1 September 2006
  2. 2 Whether the Commissioners acted lawfully in refusing exception from registration under paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 1 VATA 1994

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant was liable to be registered for VAT from 1 September 2006 as his taxable supplies exceeded the threshold in July 2006, and the Commissioners lawfully refused exception from registration because, at the relevant date, there was no evidence that future turnover would fall below the deregistration threshold.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed