Ann Hood v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 6 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 294 (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 an assessment of VAT (£10,865 plus interest) on piano sales which the appellant said she had been advised by HMRC's National Advice Service not to include. The Tribunal found the appellant honest but concluded she had not proved, on the balance of probabilities, that she received clear, unambiguous misdirection from HMRC. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment upheld.
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
The Tribunal applied and affirmed that a taxpayer alleging reliance on HMRC advice bears the evidential burden of proving that the advice was given and that it was clear, unambiguous and unqualified; general HMRC publicity (e.g. Notice 700 stating registration covers all business activities) can undermine a claim of reliance on contrary oral advice.
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 expressly declined to decide whether it had jurisdiction to entertain misdirection or legitimate expectation arguments because the factual failure to prove misdirection made that unnecessary. It also noted that HMRC's maintained records of advice-line calls are potentially determinative where no corroborating evidence of advice is produced.