Abdul Noor v Commissioners for Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs
Decision date: 26 May 2011
Neutral citation: [2011] UKFTT 349 (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 concerned HMRC's disallowance of £3,628.39 input VAT on the ground the services were supplied more than six months before the appellant's VAT registration. The First-tier Tribunal accepted the appellant's account of clear oral NAS advice given after full disclosure, held the appellant had a legitimate expectation to recover the VAT, and allowed the appeal. The Tribunal also held it has jurisdiction under s.83 VATA to determine public law issues (legitimate expectation) when they are determinative of the amount of input tax.
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
The Tribunal treated as its ratio that a taxpayer can establish a legitimate expectation from oral HMRC advice where the taxpayer made full disclosure, the advice relied on was clear and unambiguous, and exceptional circumstances exist for treating an oral ruling as binding; and that the First-tier Tribunal has jurisdiction under s.83(1)(c) VATA to decide public law issues (including legitimate expectation) insofar as they determine the amount of input tax.
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 it is not fatal to a legitimate expectation claim that the advice was oral rather than written where circumstances are "very exceptional" and the official knew the importance of the answer and the taxpayer's reliance. The notes also record that Sales J’s reasoning in Oxfam on Tribunal jurisdiction was treated as having binding effect insofar as it formed part of the decision.