Maxxim Residential Design Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 2 June 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 474 (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 s73 best‑judgment VAT assessments and Schedule 24 penalties arising from Maxxim Residential Design Ltd’s repayments claims for VAT periods 03/13–06/14. The Tribunal upheld HMRC’s best‑judgment assessments for 12/13, 03/14 and 06/14 but set aside earlier period assessments (03/13, 06/13, 09/13) as out of time. The Tribunal found the 06/14 input‑tax claim involved invoices supplied by the appellant that conflicted with suppliers’ records, concluding the 06/14 inaccuracy was deliberate and concealed and that the earlier inaccuracies were deliberate with prompted disclosure, and upheld the Schedule 24 penalties accordingly.
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 HMRC, after making reasonable enquiries (including supplier checks and requests for records), fairly concludes that repayment claims are unsupported and makes s73 best‑judgment assessments, those assessments can be validly made and upheld unless the taxpayer rebuts them with credible evidence; further, providing invoices that conflict with suppliers’ records can support a finding of a deliberate and concealed inaccuracy for Schedule 24 penalty purposes.
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 indicated that notifying HMRC of "errors" after HMRC has already sought specific verification may amount to prompted disclosure, limiting mitigation; and that the later invalidation of some assessments as out of time does not automatically require reduction of penalties, because the statutory concept of a liability being "due or payable" can still support penalty liability in appropriate circumstances.