Mr Graham Gouldson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 27 July 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 349 (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
Mr Gouldson appealed HMRC closure notice and discovery assessments denying parts of his Seafarers’ Earnings Deduction for 2004/05–2006/07 in respect of service on the vessel Edda Fjord. The Tribunal held that during periods when temporary accommodation units were fitted the vessel was used “mainly for the provision of accommodation” and therefore fell within the statutory definition of an “offshore installation,” so SED was not payable for those periods; it also held HMRC validly made discovery assessments under TMA s.29. 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
Where a vessel is temporarily fitted with accommodation units and in the relevant period is used predominantly to provide accommodation rather than as a ship engaged in maritime activities, it can fall within the statutory definition of an “offshore installation” and so be excluded from the term “ship” for SED purposes; and HMRC may make discovery assessments under TMA s.29 where the relevant facts were not reasonably ascertainable from the taxpayer’s returns and only became apparent during enquiry.
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 (by way of distinction from prior authority such as Spowage) that the decisive factor is the vessel’s actual predominant use in the period (accommodation versus multi-purpose maintenance/construction), and that official classification of a vessel alone does not determine SED entitlement.
Warning
The chunk repeats material and contains formatting glitches and stray text, but the factual and legal findings are clear. notes repeat material and contain formatting glitches, but the key factual and legal findings appear present.