Wolverhampton Jeep Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 4 March 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 116 (TC)
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 whether input VAT was recoverable on 21 Chrysler vehicles supplied to the dealer for demonstrator and/or courtesy use between 1993–1997. The tribunal found the vehicles were supplied for the dual purpose of demonstration and courtesy use and not acquired for the purpose of sale. Applying paragraph 7(1) of the 1992 Order, input tax was not recoverable and the appeal was dismissed. No costs order was made.
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
Where vehicles are supplied to a dealer for demonstrator or courtesy use and are not acquired for the purpose of sale, they fall within the paragraph 7(1) exclusion of input tax under the 1992 Order; the actual use, not documentary annotations, is decisive in determining entitlement to input tax.
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 noted (obiter) that had the vehicles been purchased after 1 December 1999 and intended for sale within 12 months, the 1999 Amendment might have allowed input tax recovery. The tribunal also indicated that reliable oral evidence can suffice to resolve disputes about dual use despite inconsistent documentary descriptions.