Wayment v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 405 (TC) (2 May 2014)

Wayment v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 405 (TC) (2 May 2014)

The Tribunal found that, based on the facts at the relevant time, it could not be anticipated that the appellant's turnover would fall below the registration threshold in the following 12 months, as subsequent figures showed turnover remained above the threshold for several months. Therefore, the conditions for exemption were not met.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 405 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Reginald Wayment; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
02 May 2014
Procedural Posture
VAT Registration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Registration, Exception to VAT Registration, Retrospective Application of VAT Exemption, Assessment of Turnover
Tax Law VAT Registration Exception to VAT Registration Retrospective Application of VAT Exemption Assessment of Turnover

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 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Reginald Wayment

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Registration Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax) Decision

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should have been excluded from liability to register for VAT because it could be foreseen that his turnover in the following 12 months would fall below the registration threshold

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that, based on the facts at the relevant time, it could not be anticipated that the appellant's turnover would fall below the registration threshold in the following 12 months, as subsequent figures showed turnover remained above the threshold for several months. Therefore, the conditions for exemption were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed