Smith (t/a Heliops UK) v Revenue & Customs [2015] UKFTT 24 (TC) (19 January 2015)

Smith (t/a Heliops UK) v Revenue & Customs [2015] UKFTT 24 (TC) (19 January 2015)

The pilot training was a supply of services, not goods or intangible assets, under Article 14(1) VAT Directive and s 5(2) VATA 1994. As the services were supplied more than six months before VAT registration, input tax recovery was time-barred by reg 111(2)(d) VAT Regulations 1995. The penalty was properly imposed as the claim was deliberate, not careless, and disclosure was prompted, not unprompted.

Citation
[2015] UKFTT 24
Parties
Appellant: Sam Smith t/a Heliops UK; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
19 January 2015
Procedural Posture
VAT Input Tax and Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
Input Tax, VAT Registration, Time Limits, Penalties, Supply of Goods or Services
Tax Law VAT Input Tax VAT Registration Time Limits Penalties Supply of Goods or Services

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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sam Smith t/a Heliops UK

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

VAT Input Tax and Penalty Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether helicopter pilot training expenses incurred before VAT registration are recoverable as input tax under VAT Regulations 1995 reg 111
  2. 2 Whether the supplies were of goods or services for VAT purposes
  3. 3 Whether the penalty for a deliberate inaccuracy was properly imposed under Sch 24 FA 2007

Ratio Decidendi

The pilot training was a supply of services, not goods or intangible assets, under Article 14(1) VAT Directive and s 5(2) VATA 1994. As the services were supplied more than six months before VAT registration, input tax recovery was time-barred by reg 111(2)(d) VAT Regulations 1995. The penalty was properly imposed as the claim was deliberate, not careless, and disclosure was prompted, not unprompted.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • Appeal against disallowance of input tax dismissed
  • Appeal against penalty dismissed