Roderick Gunkel & Associates Limited v Her Majesty's Revenue & Customs
Decision date: 16 November 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 308 (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 input VAT reclaimed by Roderick Gunkel & Associates Ltd on (a) a leased Edinburgh flat used for some business meetings/overnight stays and (b) relocation/refurbishment and removal costs at an employee's Balfron home. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's contention that indirect and direct tax rules should be treated the same, allowed part of the Edinburgh claim as business-related (remitted for apportionment), allowed the removal/relocation expense (£134.77) as input tax, and remitted other Balfron items for appropriate apportionment. No costs order.
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 held that (1) the statutory regimes for indirect (VAT) and direct taxation are distinct so co-location of administering bodies does not make their rules interchangeable; (2) where accommodation is used for both business and domestic purposes input tax is not automatically disallowed but must be apportioned under s24(5) VATA 1994; and (3) relocation expenses properly linked to an employee's relocation can qualify as input tax subject to factual assessment.
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 noted HMRC internal guidance (Notice 700 and V-13) and past practice in its factual analysis but observed such guidance has no force of law; this observation informed, but did not determine, the decision.