United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> FMP Lincs v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18817 (21 October 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18817.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18817

---

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

---

FMP Lincs v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18817 (21 October 2004)

18817

VAT – ADMINISTRATION — bad debt relief — requirements for relief not complied with — appeal dismissed

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

FMP LINCS LIMITED Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: Mr M S Johnson(Chairman)

Mr R Preshno FCMA

Sitting in public in York on the 15th September 2004

Mr P R Baker, Bookkeeper, for the Appellant

Mr D Abberton, counsel instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION
1. In this case the appellant appealed against an assessment totalling £24,977.97, comprising £23,512.00 value added tax and £1,465.97 interest. The assessment, which was notified to the appellant by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise ("Customs") on 6 June 2002, was issued in reliance upon section 73(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 ("the Act"). The assessment was subsequently reconsidered by Customs and amended on or about 27 November 2002 to £23,075.00 tax plus £2,163.19 interest, a total of £25,238.19.
2. The assessment came about in the light of discrepancies between amounts of input tax claimed by a company called FM Contracting Limited ("Contracting"), in respect of sales invoices raised by the appellant, and the output tax paid by the appellant. The invoices were found on inspection by the assessing officer of Customs, Mrs Jacqueline Phillips, not to have been recorded in the appellant's sales ledger. Output tax had apparently not been accounted for by the appellant in respect of supplies represented by those invoices. Mrs Phillips accordingly assessed the appellant in the amount of the output tax apparently outstanding.
3. In its notice of appeal the appellant raised various grounds of appeal against the assessment. Further grounds of appeal were subsequently intimated by the appellant in correspondence between Mr Baker, who appeared for the appellant, and Customs. Subject as mentioned in the next paragraph, the tribunal has not in the event been concerned with these grounds, because in opening the appeal, Mr Baker indicated that all of these grounds were being abandoned. Mr Baker informed the tribunal that, in the light of what he had seen and heard since the appeal was launched, it was no longer thought appropriate to rely upon them. We accordingly say no more about them.
4. However Mr Baker told the tribunal that there remained one matter in respect of which the appellant continued to be in dispute with Customs. That concerned the alleged entitlement of the appellant to bad debt relief affecting the amount of tax which should be due to Customs. Mr Baker told the tribunal that Contracting had been wound up in 2002, and that the appellant itself had not traded since approximately March 2004, when it ran out of business. He suggested that bad debt relief should result.
5. Mr Baker was unable to explain to the tribunal the basis upon which it was alleged that bad debt relief should be forthcoming. We assisted by drawing his attention to section 36(1) of the Act and Part XIX of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 ("the Regulations"), and asked him if the appellant's case was that, pursuant to the Act and the Regulations, relief had been wrongly withheld by Customs. Mr Baker was obliged to admit that he could not show, and did not argue, that the requirements for bad debt relief were satisfied in relation to any relevant supplies. Indeed, Mr Baker offered no evidence at all.
6. In these circumstances we indicated that we did not feel that the appeal could proceed further. Without calling on Mr Abberton, who represented Customs, we announced that the appeal was dismissed. This written decision is merely to record the outcome of the appeal hearing and the reasons for the outcome.
7. No application for costs was made by Mr Abberton and none are awarded.

MR M S JOHNSON

CHAIRMAN

Release Date: 21 October 2004

MAN/03/0587