ABA Motors Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 3 May 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 406 (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 concerns ABA Motors Ltd's application under VATA s84 to proceed with an appeal without first paying or depositing £110,310 VAT, on grounds of hardship. The First-tier Tribunal accepted the director's credible oral evidence that ABA and its related company YBA lacked funds or assets and that YBA could not provide funds, and therefore allowed the hardship application so the appeal may proceed without payment.
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 an appellant demonstrates at the hardship hearing, on the evidence presented, that it lacks immediately or readily available resources to pay or deposit the disputed VAT, the tribunal may allow the appeal to proceed under VATA s84(3B)(b); credible oral evidence can supplement documentary material and suffice to establish hardship even if HMRC previously refused on the documentary file.
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 it must not consider the merits of the underlying appeal when deciding hardship, that the hardship test is applied as at the hearing date, and that tribunals may take into account whether the appellant's own actions contributed to an inability to pay.