Morrison Bowmore Distillers Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 20 August 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 394 (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 case concerned a retrospective VAT repayment claim of about £4,539.78–£4,539.87 for staff entertainment incurred in 1993–1997, submitted after House of Lords decisions permitted pre‑May 1997 claims. The Tribunal had to decide whether the appellant proved the expenditure and whether a 2007‑based extrapolation method to calculate recoverable input tax was acceptable given limited historic records. The Tribunal found on the balance of probabilities that the appellant discharged the burden of proof, accepted the conservative extrapolation, and allowed repayment with interest; no costs were awarded.
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
Where historical records are limited because of the passage of time, a taxpayer may satisfy the burden of proof on a balance of probabilities by using a reasonable and conservative extrapolation based on verifiable figures (here using 2007 input VAT and turnover applied to verifiable earlier turnover), and the Tribunal need not require disproportionate or exceptional evidential measures for relatively small retrospective claims.
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 that isolated minor discrepancies in records do not necessarily demonstrate a systematic accounting failure, and it indicated that determination of whether interest should be simple or compound could be reserved where higher courts have pending proceedings on that issue.
Warning
The chunk contains repeated text and formatting artefacts; some figures differ slightly within the text (e.g. £4,539.87 v £4,539.78). The notes contain some repeated text and slight inconsistencies in the stated repayment figure; they may be incomplete on procedural detail.