VAT Consultant vatadvice.org
Columnist
Share this content
Tags:

Eat, don’t eat!

4th Feb 2019
VAT Consultant vatadvice.org
Columnist
Share this content

I read the FTT decision in Eat Ltd with some interest. Why, Oh why did this taxpayer pursue the Appeal? Breakfast muffins and ciabatta rolls were heated to be enjoyed hot by the consumer.  The FTT had no hesitation in finding that selling and consumer had a common interest in this. The supplies are standard rated. That is obvious.

It is not uncommon for a taxpayer’s adviser to be verbally criticised at an Appeal Hearing. But I think it is unusual for the nature of criticism as found here (para 54) to be included in a formal written decision. The FTT described the Accountants’ conduct as; “wholly unprofessional.” It went on to award costs against the Accountants, not the taxpayer, on a ‘wasted costs order.’ This is provided under the Tribunal Rule 10(1)(a): “if wasted costs have been incurred as a result of any improper, unreasonable, or negligent act or omission on the part of any legal or other representative or any employee of such a representative.” Strong words indeed!

The Eat Ltd decision is here:

 http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKFTT/TC/2019/TC06953.html

Tags:

Replies (1)

Please login or register to join the discussion.

avatar
By Justin Bryant
05th Feb 2019 11:37

But the criticism (and costs) was for their procedural deficiencies (re late witness statements), not deficiencies re their substantive arguments, so that's not really of much interest I think (as that happens commonly for HMRC also).

Of more interest is criticism (especially against HMRC) re the substantive arguments -like here:

http://financeandtax.decisions.tribunals.gov.uk/judgmentfiles/j10915/TC0...

Thanks (0)