United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

Worsfold v Revenue & Customs [2006] UKVAT V19968 (28 December 2006)

19968

Fuel Scale Charges – whether car used for both private and business purposes – no evidence of private use – no detailed records of use kept or previously asked for by HMRC – appeal allowed – VATA 1994 S. 56.

EDINBURGH TRIBUNAL CENTRE

PETER WORSFOLD Appellant(s)

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR

HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE & CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: T GORDON COUTTS, QC (Chairman)

Sitting in Inverness on 6 December 2006.

for the Appellant(s) Mr Peter Worsfold

for the Respondents Ms Julie Strachan

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2006.


 


DECISION

This appeal, by the time it reached the Tribunal, was concerned only with the question of whether an assessment for scale charges for the Appellant's Saab motor car were correct. The Appellant is a sole trader who during the time with which this appeal is concerned conducted business in a shop operating as a general supplier. He had employees and conducted the book-keeping and other work connected with that and another on-line business with which the Tribunal had no particular concern from an office in his house. Photographs were produced of that office which demonstrated plainly that it did so operate and the Tribunal was informed that tax allowances were made for its use.

The Appellant described his day as commencing at 5.30 a.m. and running until 10.30 p.m. in a detailed letter dated 23 May 2006. Due to a failure in communication, in part due to the Appellant's taciturnity, it was not until later that it was made plain that the Appellant's office was in his house. There he kept his cash and the days float. He then went from his office to collect staff from their home and opened the shop at 6 a.m. He drove back to his office to prepare banking, check mail and in the course of the day did make various journeys from business premises to his office which coincided with being able to use the facilities at his house. He told the Tribunal, on oath, that his journeys all had a business purpose and that his entire expenditure on fuel was wholly for that purpose. He did not use his vehicle for social occasions since if he went to play bridge he was in the habit of taking a drink and did not wish to drive.

There were no records detailing mileage nor any daily log. When that was raised with the Appellant his response was that he had had a previous compliance visit and at that it was established that the vehicle was used solely for business. Accordingly he did not keep or have detailed records of journeys, simply receipts for fuel purchased.

The Respondents had difficulty with his approach and did not believe the Appellant. This lack of belief was apparently due to the lack of records.

DECISION

The Tribunal finds that the Appellant did use his vehicle for business purposes. The dispute is to whether it was entirely used for business purposes was one which on the available evidence was difficult to determine beyond doubt. However the Appellant has given evidence on oath and equally there was insufficient material before the Tribunal to enable it to affirm that the Appellant was lying. The Tribunal note that the Appellant did not appear to have been specifically requested to keep any particular records of journeys and mileage so that specific apportionment, if that had been appropriate, was impossible. The Respondents had the invoices but did not attempt to show that any pattern of purchases provided support for their assessment.

The Tribunal is not prepared to categorise the Appellant as a liar on the material before it and accordingly allow the appeal. It had in mind that the onus is on the Appellant to show that the assessment was incorrect. This he can do, and has done by his evidence on oath being accepted.

That said, however, since the Respondents are entitled to require such records as they request to be kept. The present situation need not arise in future if they specify what they want the Appellant to keep so that they can make such assessment or adjustment if it could be shown to be appropriate to the claim for refund of tax on fuel. While the Tribunal understands the difficulty of the Respondents in accepting the Appellant's position that cannot

alter the fact that on the only available evidence to the Tribunal there is sufficient to allow the appeal.

T GORDON COUTTS, QC

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE: 28 DECEMBER 2006.

EDN/06/44