Brian David Webb v The Commissioners for HMRC

Decision date: 14 August 2025

Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 987 (TC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

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

Mr Webb, a long‑time VAT-registered builder who ceased paid building work in 1995 and dealt in multiple properties, claimed input tax and a repayment for periods up to 02/21. HMRC denied the 02/21 repayment, assessed VAT for 08/18–11/20, imposed penalties and deregistered him from 28 Feb 2021. The First‑tier Tribunal found he was not carrying on an economic activity for VAT purposes, the property supplies were exempt under Schedule 9 Group 1 item 1 VATA, and therefore upheld deregistration, denied the repayment, confirmed the assessments and sustained penalties (with a 91% quality‑of‑disclosure reduction applied).

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’s central holding was that Mr Webb was not carrying on an economic activity/business for VAT purposes during the relevant periods so he was not entitled to be registered or to reclaim input tax; additionally, the supplies of the properties were exempt under Schedule 9 Group 1 item 1 VATA, meaning input tax was not recoverable regardless of timing. The Tribunal also held that reliance on an Inland Revenue income‑tax enquiry note does not justify VAT recovery where the VAT rules differ.

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 subjective intention to make a profit has limited relevance when assessing whether transactions constitute an economic activity under the applicable directive/article, and that the Fisher indicators (the six factors discussed in analogous authorities) are useful analytical aids in determining whether property dealings amount to an economic activity for VAT purposes.

Warning

Some repetition and formatting artefacts appear in the chunk, but key facts and findings are discernible. Some repetition and formatting artefacts appear in the provided notes, but the key facts and findings necessary for this summary are discernible.