Abbey Group Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 13 October 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 1418 (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
Abbey Group reclaimed input VAT on free carpets supplied with new-build homes; HMRC issued a s.73(2) assessment for periods 07/19 and 02/23. The First-tier Tribunal held it lacked jurisdiction under s.83(1)(p) VATA to determine Abbey's public-law legitimate-expectation defence to that assessment and, on the merits, would in any event have rejected Abbey's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the assessment corrected to £332,948.12.
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 decided that the statutory scheme and the existence of HMRC's discretionary power to assess under s.73 (expressed as "may assess") do not automatically confer on the First-tier Tribunal a jurisdiction in s.83(1)(p) appeals to adjudicate all public-law constraints (such as legitimate expectation) on HMRC's exercise of that discretion; appeals under s.83(1)(p) permit challenges to validity or statutory preconditions but do not necessarily extend to standalone public‑law defences absent clearer Parliamentary language.
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 (obiter) that earlier Upper Tribunal discussion in Zeman was not binding here, that treating an assessment as enforcement proceedings (and so as an exception to exclusivity) depends on substance and statutory construction, and that practical considerations argue against inferring a broad supervisory public‑law jurisdiction for the FTT without clearer statutory words.