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

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

The tribunal held that, based on the facts as they existed at the relevant time, it could not be established that the appellant's turnover in the following 12 months would fall below the registration threshold. The evidence showed that turnover fluctuated above and below the threshold, and in the 12 months following the relevant date, turnover was actually higher than before. Therefore, the conditions for retrospective exemption were not met.

Citation
[2014] UKFTT 405
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 Threshold, Retrospective Exemption From VAT Registration, Assessment of Anticipated Turnover
Tax Law VAT Registration Threshold Retrospective Exemption From VAT Registration Assessment of Anticipated 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 on the basis that it could be foreseen at the relevant date that turnover in the following 12 months would fall below the registration threshold

Ratio Decidendi

The tribunal held that, based on the facts as they existed at the relevant time, it could not be established that the appellant's turnover in the following 12 months would fall below the registration threshold. The evidence showed that turnover fluctuated above and below the threshold, and in the 12 months following the relevant date, turnover was actually higher than before. Therefore, the conditions for retrospective exemption were not met.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed