Paul Johnson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 6 May 2010
Neutral citation: Neutral citation not available
Overall AI summary confidence: high
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 a golf professional's claim for repayment of overpaid VAT on tuition from 12/81 to 03/06 made by voluntary disclosure. The tribunal found the appellant had not proved the quantum claimed because the disclosure lacked contemporaneous records or any rational evidential basis, and upheld HMRC’s use of a previously accepted 7.14% apportionment (with adjustments for registration dates and VAT rate changes). The appeal was dismissed.
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
A claimant seeking repayment of historical overpaid VAT must prove the amount claimed on the balance of probabilities with an adequate evidential foundation; where a voluntary disclosure gives figures with no contemporaneous or rational basis, the tax authority may reasonably apply a previously accepted apportionment as the basis for repayment calculations.
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 judgment observed that, while it may be unrealistic to expect full prime commercial records for very old periods, the absence of any evidential rationale for disclosed figures undermines a claim; averaging or applying a previously accepted percentage across periods can be an acceptable pragmatic method where specific evidence for a different apportionment is lacking.