Roche v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 313 (TC) (19 November 2009)

Roche v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 313 (TC) (19 November 2009)

On the balance of probabilities, HMRC properly issued the Notice requiring security, as Mr Roche's financial circumstances, history of late payments, lack of reliable evidence of assets and liabilities, and behaviour indicated a real risk to the revenue. The existence of penalties and interest was not sufficient protection in the circumstances.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 313
Parties
Appellant: Paul Maurice Roche; 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 Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Security Requirement, Protection of Revenue, Discretion of HMRC, Financial Risk Assessment, Penalties and Interest
Tax Law VAT Security Requirement Protection of Revenue Discretion of HMRC Financial Risk Assessment Penalties and Interest

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 16
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Paul Maurice Roche

Appellant

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

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Security Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's requirement for security under Schedule 11 paragraph 4(2)(a) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 was reasonable and necessary for the protection of the revenue
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's financial circumstances and history justified the imposition of a security requirement
  3. 3 Whether the existence of penalties and interest provided sufficient protection to the revenue

Ratio Decidendi

On the balance of probabilities, HMRC properly issued the Notice requiring security, as Mr Roche's financial circumstances, history of late payments, lack of reliable evidence of assets and liabilities, and behaviour indicated a real risk to the revenue. The existence of penalties and interest was not sufficient protection in the circumstances.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The Notice of Requirement to give Security issued by HMRC is upheld.