Beritaz Care Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 18 June 2026
Neutral citation: [2026] UKFTT 912 (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
Beritaz applied on 8 May 2025 for Robertson Nursing Home Ltd to join its VAT group with effect from 1 May 2021; HMRC did not refuse within 90 days and treated RNHL as a member from 8 May 2025 but later refused retrospective effect. The First-tier Tribunal held that because the grouping application was deemed granted from 8 May 2025, HMRC’s later refusal to backdate membership (an exercise of discretion under B(4)(b)) did not create an appealable refusal under s.83(1)(k) VATA, and struck the appeal out for want of jurisdiction.
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 HMRC do not refuse a B(1)/(2) grouping application within 90 days, the application is deemed granted under B(4)(a)/(5); a subsequent decision refusing retrospective commencement, properly characterised as an exercise of the B(4)(b) discretion, does not revive or create an appealable refusal of the original application for the purposes of s.83(1)(k). This reasoning led the Tribunal to conclude it lacked jurisdiction and to strike out the appeal.
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 (drawing on Dollar Financial) that a different conclusion might follow if HMRC had accepted membership within 90 days but contemporaneously refused a backdating request (i.e. an immediate acceptance of membership coupled with refusal of retrospective effect), but it left that question open. It also treated the UT’s reasoning in Dollar Financial as highly persuasive though that point was not treated as strictly binding here.