United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions

---

You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Barry (t/a First & Last Bar) v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT V20236 (05 July 2007)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2007/V20236.html
Cite as: [2007] UKVAT V20236

---

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

---

Aidan Barry (t/a First & Last Bar v Revenue & Customs [2007] UKVAT V20236 (05 July 2007)

20236

Hardship – hardship not established – appeal dismissed

BELFAST TRIBUNAL CENTRE

AIDAN BARRY T/A FIRST & LAST BAR Appellant

and –

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S REVENUE & CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: IAN W HUDDLESTON (Chairman)

MR A F HENNESSEY

Sitting in public in Belfast on 25 October 2006

J. Byrne, Accountant, for the Appellant

Tariq Sadiq, BL, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2007


 


DECISION
1. This is an Appeal against an assessment to VAT raised against the Appellant arising out of his business as a publican. The amount in dispute (as per the Notice of Appeal) is £7,151.21 which the Appellant contends he is unable to pay because to do so would cause hardship.
2. The following facts were adduced on behalf of the Appellant in support of his hardship application:

he is the tenant, and not owner, of the licensed premises from which he trades. The Lease at the time of the hearing was due to expire on the 30^th November 2006 and the Appellant did not intend to renew it because of poor trading levels;

the Appellant has been separated from his wife and is paying maintenance in respect of his children (approximately £150.00 per month);

the Appellant faces an outstanding demand from the Inland Revenue in the sum of £3,207.53;

the Appellant, after the separation from his wife, purchased a flat on which he has mortgage payments of approximately £378.00 per month. The deposit, the Tribunal was told, was borrowed from his sister and has since been repaid;

trading accounts were produced to the Tribunal showing a net profit of £14,212.00 (in the year 2005) and £12,111.00 (for the year 2004);

bank statements were adduced to the Tribunal in respect of the Appellant's trading account held at the Bank of Ireland (Banbridge Branch). The Tribunal was told that this was the only bank account which the Appellant had. Bank statements were produced for the periods 4^th January 2006 to 2^nd February 2006 and from 6^th March 2006 to 5^th May 2006. Whilst there were gaps in the statements, the account showed a consistent credit balance which did not fall below £6,972.84.

3. Mr Tariq Sadiq appeared on behalf of the Respondents and made the case that the burden of proof in a hardship application rested squarely on the Appellant and that in this case hardship had not been established for the following reasons:

the Bank Statements which had been produced were incomplete but those which had been produced showed a credit balance throughout a consistent period;

the trading accounts showed a profit throughout the 2 years for which they had been produced;

no firm evidence was produced in respect of the payments of maintenance made to the Appellant's wife and children.

4. The Tribunal, having considered the evidence before it, decided in favour of the Respondents. The Burden of Proof in a hardship application always rests upon the Appellant and the Tribunal did not feel that it had been discharged in this case. For that reason the Appeal will be dismissed. No Order as to costs.
IAN HUDDLESTON CHAIRMAN RELEASED: 5 July 2007

LON/2006/400