Validity of a notice of a requirement to give security
In Mistral Promotions & Marketing v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 112 (11 March 2015) the FTT found that a notice of requirement to give security was valid despite two failures by HMRC.
Mistral was appealing against a notice of requirement to give security (VATA 1994 Sch 11 para 4(2)(a)). The notice had been imposed because the business was ‘deemed to pose a risk to future VAT revenue’.
The FTT pointed to John Dee [1995] STC 941 as authority for the proposition that the FTT’s role was to decide whether the decision to impose security was one that could be reasonably arrived at.
The FTT rejected Mistral’s argument that HMRC should have taken into account the fact that it had changed its business model in the absence of evidence to that effect submitted to HMRC. It found that HMRC...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
Validity of a notice of a requirement to give security
In Mistral Promotions & Marketing v HMRC [2015] UKFTT 112 (11 March 2015) the FTT found that a notice of requirement to give security was valid despite two failures by HMRC.
Mistral was appealing against a notice of requirement to give security (VATA 1994 Sch 11 para 4(2)(a)). The notice had been imposed because the business was ‘deemed to pose a risk to future VAT revenue’.
The FTT pointed to John Dee [1995] STC 941 as authority for the proposition that the FTT’s role was to decide whether the decision to impose security was one that could be reasonably arrived at.
The FTT rejected Mistral’s argument that HMRC should have taken into account the fact that it had changed its business model in the absence of evidence to that effect submitted to HMRC. It found that HMRC...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
