Taxation logo taxation mission text

Since 1927 the leading authority on tax law, practice and administration

Not enough detail

29 March 2016
Issue: 4543 / Categories: Tax cases , VAT

CRC v Bratt Auto Contracts and Bratt Auto ServicesUpper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber), 19 February 2016

Statutory requirements for output tax repayment claims

The taxpayers traded as a car rental and self-drive company (BAS) and a long-term hire company (BAC). In March 2009 the companies’ adviser wrote a letter claiming repayments of output tax for each taxpayer.

HMRC said the letter did not constitute a claim because it did not satisfy the statutory requirements in VAT Regulations SI 1995/2518 reg 37.

The First-tier Tribunal allowed the BAS claim on the ground that it stated the sum claimed how it had been calculated and referred to the company’s accounts. However because the equivalent information was not included for BAC the tribunal dismissed its appeal.

HMRC and the taxpayers appealed.

Looking first at BAC Mr Justice Warren in the Upper Tribunal said VATA 1994 s 80(6) required a claim to be made in ‘such form and manner’ as prescribed.

The prescription...

If you or your firm subscribes to Taxation.co.uk, please click the login box below:

If you are not a subscriber but are a registered user or have a free trial, please enter your details in the following boxes:

Alternatively, you can register free of charge to read a limited amount of subscriber content per month.
Once you have registered, you will receive an email directing you back to read this item in full.

Please reach out to customer services at +44 (0) 330 161 1234 or 'customer.services@lexisnexis.co.uk' for further assistance.

back to top icon