Shand Security Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 91 (TC) (01 February 2013)

Shand Security Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 91 (TC) (01 February 2013)

The Tribunal held that HMRC's decision to require security of £12,000 was reasonable based on the information available at the time, given the Appellant's links to previous non-compliant companies and the calculated VAT liability. The Appellant failed to show that HMRC acted unreasonably or took into account irrelevant matters.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 91
Parties
Appellant: Shand Security Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
01 February 2013
Procedural Posture
VAT Security Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Security Requirement, Reasonableness of HMRC Decision, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Successor Companies and VAT Liability
Tax Law VAT Security Requirement Reasonableness of HMRC Decision Supervisory Jurisdiction Successor Companies and VAT Liability

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shand Security Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's decision to require security for VAT was reasonable
  2. 2 Whether the amount of security required (£12,000) was fair and reasonable

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal held that HMRC's decision to require security of £12,000 was reasonable based on the information available at the time, given the Appellant's links to previous non-compliant companies and the calculated VAT liability. The Appellant failed to show that HMRC acted unreasonably or took into account irrelevant matters.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The requirement for security in the amount of £12,000 is confirmed.