March v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 94 (TC) (07 May 2009)

March v Revenue & Customs [2009] UKFTT 94 (TC) (07 May 2009)

The Tribunal held that the supplies by NJ Popham and Dunstan House were services, not capital goods, and thus input tax was not recoverable under the flat rate scheme. However, the Respondents' refusal to allow retrospective withdrawal from the scheme was unreasonable due to an arbitrary and flawed hardship policy, and the Appellant was entitled to recover VAT on the Martin Collins supply as it was a single supply of goods including haulage.

Citation
[2009] UKFTT 94 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Sally March; Respondents: Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
07 May 2009
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax), Substantive Decision
Outcome
Appeal allowed in part
Legal Topics
VAT, Flat Rate Scheme, Input Tax Credit, Capital Expenditure Goods, Retrospective Withdrawal, Administrative Law
Tax Law VAT Flat Rate Scheme Input Tax Credit Capital Expenditure Goods Retrospective Withdrawal Administrative Law

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sally March

Appellant

Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the denial of input tax claim on construction costs under the flat rate scheme was correct
  2. 2 Whether the supplies in question were goods or services for VAT purposes
  3. 3 Whether the refusal to allow retrospective withdrawal from the flat rate scheme was reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that the supplies by NJ Popham and Dunstan House were services, not capital goods, and thus input tax was not recoverable under the flat rate scheme. However, the Respondents' refusal to allow retrospective withdrawal from the scheme was unreasonable due to an arbitrary and flawed hardship policy, and the Appellant was entitled to recover VAT on the Martin Collins supply as it was a single supply of goods including haulage.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed in part

Orders

  • Appellant entitled to recover VAT on Martin Collins supply including haulage
  • Respondents' refusal to allow retrospective withdrawal from the flat rate scheme with effect from 1 July 2006 was unreasonable