Motorplus Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 4 August 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 931 (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
Motorplus appealed HMRC's denial of input tax recovery for supplies from two suppliers; HMRC had refused the ECN on the basis that "no VAT had been charged" and no VAT invoices were issued. The FTT held those denial letters did not expressly decide whether the supplies were taxable or exempt, but because HMRC's self-standing finding that no VAT had been charged was material to the correctness of the decision (payments were VAT‑inclusive), the Tribunal had jurisdiction under s.83(c) VATA to determine chargeability. HMRC's strike-out application under Rule 8(3)(c) was dismissed and further case management directions were ordered.
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
Where an HMRC decision denying input tax states as a self-standing factual finding that "no VAT had been charged" despite VAT-inclusive payments, the Tribunal may have jurisdiction under s.83(c) to determine whether the supplies were taxable, because resolution of chargeability is necessary to assess the correctness of HMRC's decision; an appeal under s.83(c) is confined to matters decided by HMRC but may extend to underlying chargeability where that factual finding is central to the decision.
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 judgment suggested (obiter) that, even if the Tribunal lacked jurisdiction on chargeability, it might nonetheless assess the reasonableness of HMRC's refusal to exercise discretion under Regulation 29(2), and criticised HMRC for failing to address chargeability when faced with detailed alternative evidence in lieu of VAT invoices.
Warning
This chunk is lengthy and contains repetitive passages and duplicated text, which made extraction of discrete points somewhat cumbersome. Notes are somewhat noisy and contain duplicated material; they may not capture every aspect of the full judgment.