Mobile Motoring Maintenance Limited v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs

Decision date: 14 December 2010

Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 6 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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 a taxpayer’s claim for repayment of output VAT following a £2,104 assessment issued 13 February 2006; the taxpayer sought a refund of £1,242.87 but did not pursue a repayment request until 27 March 2009. The tribunal held that the three-year statutory time limit in s.80(4) VATA runs from the end of the prescribed accounting period in which the assessment was made (ended 28 February 2006), so the claim was out of time by a small margin. The tribunal also held it had no jurisdiction to extend or vary the statutory time limits or to entertain complaints about HMRC delay; 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

The operative ratio is that for repayment claims under s.80(1A) VATA not founded on erroneous voluntary disclosure, the relevant date for the statutory time limit is the end of the prescribed accounting period in which the assessment was made (here 28 February 2006), and the First-tier Tribunal has no jurisdiction to extend or vary the statutory limitation periods set out in s.80 VATA.

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 indicates that complaints about HMRC delay, conduct or intimidation are matters for the Complaints Adjudicator rather than for the tribunal when considering time-limit disputes, and that legislative extensions of limitation periods take effect only from their appointed commencement dates.

Warning

This chunk repeats material and includes duplicated paragraphs; otherwise clear.

Source links

Judgment page Judgment PDF Judgment XML