Oceanteam Power & Umbilical ASA v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 11 December 2009
Neutral citation: [2009] UKFTT 361 (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 challenged HMRC’s refusal to repay £201,250 VAT as time‑barred under Regulation 192 of the VAT Regulations 1995. The Tribunal found the claim in respect of the 15 June 2007 invoice was out of time and that Regulation 192’s six‑month limit applied, so HMRC were entitled to refuse repayment. The Tribunal also declined to determine, in this appeal, whether the supplier had been wrong to charge VAT or to order recovery from the supplier.
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 enforceable ratio is that the statutory time limit in Regulation 192 for VAT repayment claims must be applied strictly and will bar claims made after the prescribed period; where a claim is time‑barred, the Tribunal will not, in that appeal, adjudicate on the separate substantive question of whether the supplier incorrectly charged VAT or order repayment on that basis.
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 (obiter) that, on the facts, the supplier Perry Slingsby appeared not to have been entitled to issue VAT invoices for the exports. It also observed that any general discretionary powers of the Commissioners to relieve late claims were not demonstrated on the evidence and were not a matter for the Tribunal to decide in this case.