Sub One Limited (t/a Subway)and 91 Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 12 December 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 385 (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 case records a Tribunal case management decision in appeals by Subway franchisees (Sub One Ltd and 91 others) challenging HMRC's view that toasted sandwiches are standard-rated for VAT. HMRC sought strike-out on grounds there was no appealable decision; the Tribunal held Officer Clarke's January 2009 letter expressed a concluded view on liability and was an appealable decision, so the strike-out was dismissed. The Tribunal also decided in principle to direct a lead appeal under Rule 18 because common legal and factual issues and largely common evidence existed, and declined to apply the "Old" costs regime to appeals started before 1 April 2009. The hearing was adjourned for parties to agree a lead appeal and for further case management directions.
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
A departmental or generic letter can constitute an appealable decision under s.83 where it communicates a concluded view on a taxpayer's liability in relation to taxable supplies; and, for case management, the Tribunal may direct a lead appeal under Rule 18 where multiple appeals raise common or closely related legal and factual issues and the evidence to decide those common issues is substantially the same.
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 commented that where liability depends on a seller's subjective dominant purpose, assertions of intention are of limited weight and must be tested against all the evidence; it also observed that standardised franchise procedures can support treating multiple franchisee appeals as involving common evidence and urged parties to cooperate in identifying a lead appeal and proposing expert evidence directions.
Warning
quality:contains_crown_copyright Some duplication and repetition in the text; decision material is lengthy and contains repeated passages.