United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> AS Gent & Associates Bailiffs Ltd v Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT V19192 (13 July 2005)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V19192.html
Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V19192

---

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

---

A S Gent & Associates Bailiffs Ltd v Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs [2005] UKVAT V19192 (13 July 2005)

19192

SECURITY — previous requirement — appeal dismissed — Value Added Tax Act 1994 Schedule 11 paragraph 4(2)

MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

A S GENT & ASSOCIATES BAILIFFS LIMITED Appellant

- and -

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: Jean Warburton (Chairman)

Susan C Stott FCA ATII

Sitting in public in Manchester on 30 June 2005

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Josh Shields of counsel instructed by the Acting Solicitor for HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION
1. This is an appeal by A S Gent & Associates Bailiffs Limited. It is against a requirement to give security under paragraph 4(2) of Schedule 11 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The appeal is in respect of a Notice of Requirement contained in a letter dated 8 September 2004 to give security in the sum of £147,152.
2. The Respondents were represented by Josh Shields of counsel instructed by the Acting Solicitor for H M Revenue and Customs who put in a bundle of copy documents. No-one appearing on behalf of the Appellant, the Tribunal determined to proceed under rule 26(2) of the Value Added Rules 1986.
3. We heard evidence on oath from Martin David Wilde, an officer of HM Revenue and Customs. From the documents submitted and the oral evidence, we find the facts to be as follows.
4. The Appellant was originally registered for VAT with effect from 1 November 1997. The Debt Breakdown provided by the Respondents shows that the Appellant had a poor compliance record from 2001. Returns for six quarters from May 2002 to September 2003 were not submitted until 3 February 2004.
5. A Notice of Requirement to provide security was issued by the Respondents in 2003 and a bond of £4,500 was provided. The Appellant made an offer to pay arrears in February 2004 but by July 2004 no payments had been made and the bond of £4,500 was offset against debts. No VAT returns had been made after September 2003.
6. A Notice of Requirement to give security was issued on 8 September 2004 and served on the Appellant. On 8 September 2004 at least £122,720.00 was owing to HM Revenue and Customs being made up of sums due on eight returns, default surcharges for five quarters and interest.
7. The Notice of Requirement was issued by Martin Wilde. In determining to issue the Notice, he had regard to the VAT debt owing, the outstanding returns and the previous Notice of Requirement. He considered that a Notice of Requirement was necessary to protect the Revenue. Attempts had been made to help the Appellant but they had failed.
8. The amount of security was calculated by Martin Wilde, based on the last four returns submitted, as £24,423 representing six months VAT. To this figure was added the £122,729 owing to HM Revenue and Customs.
9. The Appellant in its Notice of Appeal as grounds for appeal stated that the amount outstanding is £103,123 and that the assessment and security are far too high and excessive. The Appellant, however, has not issued an appeal against any assessment.
10. Josh Shields for HM Revenue and Customs submitted that it was reasonable to issue the Notice of Requirement in this case. No errors had been made by the officer and the appeal should be dismissed.
11. The Court of Appeal in John Dee Limited v Customs and Excise Commissioners [1995] STC 941 set out the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in security cases. Accordingly, we must ask ourselves whether HM Revenue and Customs had acted in a way which no reasonable panel of HM Revenue and Customs could have acted, whether they had taken into account some irrelevant matter, whether they disregarded something to which they should have given weight and whether they had erred on a point of law.
12. We have considered the decision taken by Martin Wilde on behalf of HM Revenue and Customs and concluded that he did none of those things. The decision to seek security and the amount of security were reasonable at the time the decision was taken on 8 September 2004.
13. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.
14. There is no direction as to costs.

JEAN WARBURTON

CHAIRMAN
Release Date: 14 July 2005

MAN/04/0564