Aleksander Vinni v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 27 October 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 911 (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 HMRC VAT assessments on two Honey Cake shops for 09/14–03/18 and 03/19, and related penalties. The FTT refused to set aside the 09/14–03/18 assessment but found HMRC made arithmetic and methodological errors (including omitting corporate sales) and directed a recomputation reducing the standard‑rated proportion. The FTT set aside the 03/19 assessment and its penalty because HMRC’s refusal of an error correction was arbitrary. The appellant’s appeal against the already‑cancelled 09/14–03/18 penalty was struck out as otiose.
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
An officer’s assessment under s.73 VATA need only be based on some material and an honest, bona fide judgment; simple arithmetic errors do not by themselves demonstrate a failure to exercise that judgment. Where representative sampling is used, the tribunal may correct or recompute an assessment rather than set it aside if errors are not so fundamental as to show absence of honest judgment. The tribunal also treated the described corporate sandwich/food supplies as not being "in the course of catering" (and therefore not automatically standard‑rated) for the purpose of the recomputation.
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 judgment includes observations that failure to provide an interpreter can cause misunderstandings without proving impropriety, that reliance on an unreliable one‑day invigilation is inappropriate, and that a mix of calculation errors favouring and disfavouring HMRC is relevant to assessing whether HMRC acted in good faith.