Fisher Hurst Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC
Decision date: 22 May 2025
Neutral citation: [2025] UKFTT 562 (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
Fisher Hurst Limited appealed an HMRC s73 VAT assessment of £63,600 for period 10/19, challenging that it had proved zero‑rated removals of plastic sheeting to T&D Sales Ltd in the Republic of Ireland. The First‑tier Tribunal found the company’s invoices, limited bank statements, tachograph cards and an expert report did not provide sufficient, auditable corroboration of removal or delivery and dismissed the appeal. The tribunal also held HMRC’s assessment was made in time under s73(6) VATA 1994 and was a lawful exercise of best judgment.
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 the documentary requirements set out in VAT Notice 725 (including contemporaneous delivery evidence such as signed delivery notes/CMRs where own transport is used) as material to entitlement to zero‑rating; where a taxable person has failed to keep such records, HMRC may lawfully rely on available transactional documents (eg invoices) and make a best‑judgement assessment within the s73(6) time limits.
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 that explanations for documentary gaps (for example COVID or illness of an employee) may be understandable but do not replace the need for contemporaneous, auditable documentation; it also noted that expert reports founded on a taxpayer’s uncorroborated annotations have limited weight.