VAT Cases & News

In James Hillis v HMRC [2013] TC02611 a penalty for failure to notify liability for VAT was quashed by the FTT: HMRC failed to consider the compliance intention of the law.

• A solicitor setting up a new practice failed to realise that turnover for VAT registration purposes should be calculated on a rolling basis. He was late in registering for VAT as a result.
• HMRC issued a late registration penalty under schedule 41 FA 2008.
• The taxpayer appealed he claimed that he had made an honest mistake and that there were special circumstances.

The FTT quashed the penalty: it was satisfied that HMRC’s decision on special circumstances in the appeal was flawed in that HMRC did not consider whether the penalty met the clear compliance intention of the law having regard to the Appellant’s individual circumstances.

Links

How to appeal a tax penalty (subscriber version)

James Hillis v HMRC [2013] TC02611

In Swanfield Limited & Others v HMRC [2017] UKUT 0088 the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that VAT payments can be allocated to current period VAT in order to minimise default surcharges.

In Adecco UK Limited & Others v HMRC [2017] UKUT 0113 the Upper Tribunal (UT) found that an employment agency, attempting to rely on the Reed decision, was making a supply of self-employed temporary workers for VAT purposes.

Two recent cases demonstrate the importance of the timing of removing planning permission conditions when establishing what is a dwelling for VAT.

In Taylor Wimpey plc v HMRC [2017] UKUT 0034 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (UT) set out some principles for determining when builders can reclaim VAT on white goods fitted in new dwellings.

In Wheels Private Hire Limited v HMRC [2017] UKUT 0051 (TCC) the Upper Tribunal (UT) held that a taxi firm made two independent supplies to its drivers for VAT purposes: an exempt supply of insurance and the standard rated hire of cars.