Sturminster Construction Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 499 (TC) (08 August 2012)

Sturminster Construction Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2012] UKFTT 499 (TC) (08 August 2012)

The Tribunal found that HMRC’s decision to require security was reasonable based on Sturminster’s poor compliance record, the director’s history with a failed company with VAT debts, and the lack of timely or detailed information from Sturminster regarding mitigating circumstances. The Tribunal held that HMRC was entitled to rely on the information available at the time and was not required to investigate further or set off unverified CIS overpayments. There was no error of law or unreasonable conduct by HMRC.

Citation
[2012] UKFTT 499
Parties
Appellant: Sturminster Construction Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
08 August 2012
Procedural Posture
VAT Security Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Security Requirement, Supervisory Jurisdiction, Reasonableness of HMRC Decision, Compliance History, Set Off of CIS Overpayments
Tax Law VAT Security Requirement Supervisory Jurisdiction Reasonableness of HMRC Decision Compliance History Set Off of CIS Overpayments

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sturminster Construction Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether HMRC's decision to require security for VAT from Sturminster Construction Limited was reasonable in the circumstances existing at the time of the decision

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal found that HMRC’s decision to require security was reasonable based on Sturminster’s poor compliance record, the director’s history with a failed company with VAT debts, and the lack of timely or detailed information from Sturminster regarding mitigating circumstances. The Tribunal held that HMRC was entitled to rely on the information available at the time and was not required to investigate further or set off unverified CIS overpayments. There was no error of law or unreasonable conduct by HMRC.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed