Stonypath Developments Ltd v Revenue & Customs (VAT - Appeal against assessment in respect of disallowed input tax) [2020] UKFTT 251 (TC) (09 June 2020)

Stonypath Developments Ltd v Revenue & Customs (VAT - Appeal against assessment in respect of disallowed input tax) [2020] UKFTT 251 (TC) (09 June 2020)

The appellant failed to prove on a balance of probability that LAPM owed the appellant a debt equal to or greater than the value of the stock, or that the debt was reduced as consideration for the stock. No direct documentary evidence of the debt or payment was provided. The appellant also failed to produce a VAT invoice for the transaction, and there was no basis for HMRC to exercise discretion to accept alternative evidence. Therefore, the input tax was properly disallowed under s 26A VATA and regulation 29 VAT Regulations.

Citation
[2020] UKFTT 251
Parties
Appellant: Stonypath Developments Ltd; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
09 June 2020
Procedural Posture
VAT Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT, Input Tax, Assessment, Disallowed Input Tax, Evidence, Corporate Transactions
Tax Law VAT Input Tax Assessment Disallowed Input Tax Evidence Corporate Transactions

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

Parties

Stonypath Developments Ltd

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether input tax should be allowed where consideration was allegedly paid by set-off against a debt within 6 months under s 26A VATA
  2. 2 Whether input tax can be reclaimed in the absence of a VAT invoice under regulation 29 VAT Regulations

Ratio Decidendi

The appellant failed to prove on a balance of probability that LAPM owed the appellant a debt equal to or greater than the value of the stock, or that the debt was reduced as consideration for the stock. No direct documentary evidence of the debt or payment was provided. The appellant also failed to produce a VAT invoice for the transaction, and there was no basis for HMRC to exercise discretion to accept alternative evidence. Therefore, the input tax was properly disallowed under s 26A VATA and regulation 29 VAT Regulations.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed