Ian Robertson v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 3 March 2010
Neutral citation: [2010] UKFTT 102 (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 a DIY refund claim by Ian Robertson for VAT overcharged on qualifying conversion works at Park Cottage; the Tribunal accepted the supplies qualified for the 5% reduced rate. Many invoices fell outside the statutory three‑year recovery period in s.80(4) VATA 1994, and the Tribunal held it had no power to override that cap. HMRC were therefore not liable to refund the difference between the standard‑rate VAT actually charged and the reduced rate where suppliers could not reclaim, and 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: medium
The Tribunal determined that section 80(4) VATA 1994 imposes a mandatory three‑year limit on recovery of overpaid VAT which the Tribunal cannot waive or disregard, and that under the DIY refund scheme HMRC’s liability to refund is confined to VAT "so chargeable" (i.e. the amount properly chargeable), not to cover excess VAT actually charged when suppliers cannot reclaim and repay it.
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 expressed sympathy for claimants disadvantaged by delayed discovery of overcharges on long projects and observed that any remedy for repayment of excess VAT paid to suppliers would lie in private law between the claimant and the suppliers rather than in the statutory refund mechanism.