Systems Aluminium Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 201 (TC) (27 March 2013)

Systems Aluminium Ltd v Revenue & Customs [2013] UKFTT 201 (TC) (27 March 2013)

The reimbursement arrangements did not comply with statutory requirements as reimbursement was not made in cash or by cheque and FMC did not bear the economic burden of the tax; therefore, the arrangements must be disregarded and the Appellant was unjustly enriched by the repayment. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider public law remedies such as legitimate expectation or abuse of power. The Appellant failed to establish any quantifiable loss under s80(3B) VATA 1994.

Citation
[2013] UKFTT 201 (TC)
Parties
Appellant: Systems Aluminium Limited; Respondents: The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs
Jurisdiction
United Kingdom
Judgment Date
27 March 2013
Procedural Posture
VAT Repayment Appeal / First Tier Tribunal (tax Chamber) Final Decision
Outcome
Appeal dismissed
Legal Topics
VAT Overpayment, Unjust Enrichment, Reimbursement Arrangements, Jurisdiction of Tribunal, Legitimate Expectation, Constructive Trust, Contract With HMRC, Public Law Remedies
Tax Law Insolvency Law Administrative Law VAT Overpayment Unjust Enrichment Reimbursement Arrangements Jurisdiction of Tribunal Legitimate Expectation +3 more

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 6 Authorities cited 32 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Systems Aluminium Limited

Appellant

The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs

Respondents

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the reimbursement arrangements between the Appellant and HMRC constituted valid reimbursement arrangements under VATA 1994 and VAT Regulations 1995
  2. 2 Whether the Appellant was unjustly enriched by the repayment of VAT
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider public law remedies such as legitimate expectation or abuse of power

Ratio Decidendi

The reimbursement arrangements did not comply with statutory requirements as reimbursement was not made in cash or by cheque and FMC did not bear the economic burden of the tax; therefore, the arrangements must be disregarded and the Appellant was unjustly enriched by the repayment. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to consider public law remedies such as legitimate expectation or abuse of power. The Appellant failed to establish any quantifiable loss under s80(3B) VATA 1994.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed in full.
  • The Notice of Assessment for recovery of £682,984 is upheld.