Michael Cohen v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 8 December 2010

Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 631 (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 appeal concerned whether ten supplies claimed as zero-rated exports had the required documentary proof under Notice 703, reg.129 VAT Regulations 1995 and s.30(6) VATA. The Tribunal found two invoices (1118 and 1177) met the proof requirements and were zero-rated, reduced the assessment accordingly, but upheld HMRC’s assessments for the other eight supplies for lack of adequate evidence. Interest was to be recalculated after reduction.

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: high

The Tribunal treated the documentary conditions in Notice 703 and reg.129 as having the force of law and held that a supplier must produce evidence meeting the identification requirements of paragraph 6.5 before zero-rating is available; a copy of an official postal docket together with the invoice can satisfy those requirements where the necessary particulars are discernible and HMRC do not impugn the supplier’s honesty.

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 notes record comments that HMRC officers may in some circumstances apply a "best judgment" or accept imperfect evidence, and that a trader’s medical condition affecting record-keeping may justify practical sympathy, but such considerations do not displace the statutory documentary requirements; these observations are non-binding remarks rather than necessary parts of the decision.

Warning

quality:contains_crown_copyright

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML