In Queenspice Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 23 March) HMRC formed the opinion that a company which operated a restaurant had substantially underdeclared its takings. They issued additional assessments covering the period from March 2002 to May 2008 under the extended 20-year time limit of VATA 1994 s 77(4). The First-tier Tribunal upheld the assessments and dismissed the company’s appeal finding that there had been ‘systematic suppression of the correct turnover’. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision applying the principles laid down by the CA in Pegasus Birds Ltd v C & E Commrs (No 2) CA [2004] STC 1509.
Why it matters: In cases involving allegations of underdeclarations of takings the findings of fact by the First-tier Tribunal are crucial.
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:
In Queenspice Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 23 March) HMRC formed the opinion that a company which operated a restaurant had substantially underdeclared its takings. They issued additional assessments covering the period from March 2002 to May 2008 under the extended 20-year time limit of VATA 1994 s 77(4). The First-tier Tribunal upheld the assessments and dismissed the company’s appeal finding that there had been ‘systematic suppression of the correct turnover’. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision applying the principles laid down by the CA in Pegasus Birds Ltd v C & E Commrs (No 2) CA [2004] STC 1509.
Why it matters: In cases involving allegations of underdeclarations of takings the findings of fact by the First-tier Tribunal are crucial.
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:
