Best On Convenience Store (A Firm) v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 9 May 2022

Neutral citation: [2022] UKFTT 159 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

This case implements the Tribunal's earlier "in principle" decision by considering HMRC's amended calculations of VAT, VAT penalties and partnership profits and the Appellant's written responses. The Tribunal accepted HMRC's amended calculations (including a £51,910 deduction), refused to admit most late arguments and evidence from the Appellant, and determined final liabilities: VAT £84,672.00, VAT penalties £61,743.40, with revised partnership profits allocated pro rata in Annex 3. The parties have 56 days to seek permission to appeal.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: medium

The Tribunal treated its prior "in principle" decision and the subsequent directions for calculations as not permitting re-opening of decided issues or the introduction of new arguments/evidence without a satisfactory explanation for lateness; and placed the burden on the taxpayer to demonstrate that post‑closure cash deposits were not trading receipts—absent such evidence HMRC's assessments stand.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The Tribunal made non‑binding observations that most of the shop assets were unlikely to yield material capital allowances or allowable capital losses given their probable age/useful lives, and commented practically on interest accrual, HMRC discretion over instalments, and limits on the Tribunal's jurisdiction regarding interest and instalment arrangements.