Moto Self Drive (UK) LLP v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 31 March 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 142 (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
Moto Self Drive (UK) LLP claimed input VAT on an Aston Martin and a Range Rover but the Tribunal found the vehicles had not been supplied to Moto and refused the input tax claim. Because the Supply Appeal failed, the Tribunal did not need to decide the Blocking Order Appeal, though it made adverse findings on credibility, ownership, insurance and the non‑arm’s‑length nature of rentals.
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
A claimant can only recover input tax where the VAT relates to a supply made to that taxable person, and evidence of ownership, invoicing and transfers must support that the supply was to the claimant; additionally, Regulation 111 relief for bodies corporate requires clear evidence of reimbursement/undertaking and that the goods were used for the body's business, otherwise relief is not available.
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 treated insurer exclusions, vehicle registration/keeper entries and the absence of VAT invoices as significant indicators against a business having received and used the vehicles; and held that assertions that low rental charges derive from purchase discounts or residual‑value assumptions are insufficient without supporting evidence to establish arm’s‑length commercial rent.