Conditionaire Energy Savers Ltd & Anor v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 16 November 2023
Neutral citation: [2023] UKFTT 977 (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 concerns appeals by Conditionaire Energy Savers Ltd and its sole director, Peter E. Williams, against an HMRC s.73 "best judgment" VAT assessment, a Schedule 24 penalty for deliberate and concealed inaccuracies in VAT returns, and a Personal Liability Notice (PLN). The First-tier Tribunal, on the papers, upheld the s.73 assessment for failure to discharge the burden of proof, found the returns intentionally inaccurate and concealed (so the Schedule 24 penalty stood), and held the deliberate inaccuracy attributable to Mr Williams, sustaining the PLN. Appeals were dismissed and rights to apply for permission to appeal preserved.
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
A s.73 "best judgment" assessment will stand unless the taxpayer adduces sufficient, corroborative evidence to displace it; absence of company records or credible evidence to show returns were correct permits upholding such an assessment. For Schedule 24 penalties, a "deliberate inaccuracy" requires subjective intent to provide inaccurate returns knowing HMRC would rely on them, and steps or arrangements that hide or remove records (including contractual transfers) can amount to concealment making a penalty properly chargeable. The deliberate inaccuracy may be attributed to a director for PLN purposes where it is shown the director caused or was responsible for the concealment.
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 observed that contractual confidentiality clauses purporting to prevent disclosure to statutory authorities do not relieve statutory record-keeping or disclosure obligations. It also noted the need for cogent evidence when serious quasi‑criminal penalties are alleged and rejected reliance on a mere "commercial approach" to waive statutory duties.