TC09528 - [2025] UKFTT 00564 (TC)

Mr Hayes, on behalf of Ingliston, made submissions on two other areas, which we allude to here briefly as we wish to make clear that we did not take these submissions into account in reaching our decision.

The first set of submissions concerned a redacted letter relating to another taxpayer which was included in the hearing bundle at Mr Hayes’ request. The letter was from HMRC. Mr Hayes submitted that it demonstrated HMRC’s approach to another business, which Mr Hayes considered to be similar to his own.

We explained to Mr Hayes during the hearing that we would not be able to take into consideration HMRC’s treatment of another business, as we knew very little of the circumstances of that other case and HMRC are bound by confidentiality not to disclose information about a different taxpayer. We have therefore taken no account of the redacted letter in reaching our decision.

The second set of submissions concerned the very significant difficulties experienced by Ingliston, and Mr Hayes personally, during the covid pandemic. Related to this, Mr Hayes submitted that Ingliston was precisely the type of hospitality and leisure business that Parliament had intended to assist through the temporary VAT reduced rating brought in by Group 16.

We have accepted the truthfulness of all Mr Hayes’ witness evidence, and this includes his evidence about the hardships he and his business went through during the pandemic. We also accept that the covid pandemic explains the timing of the introduction of Group 16.

For the purposes of deciding this appeal, however, our approach has been to interpret Item 7 and Group 16 in line with the guidance provided by the CJEU in cases including Erotic Center and Phantasialand, and to apply this interpretation to our findings of fact. We do not consider that it would be right for us to place an additional gloss on our interpretation of these provisions because Group 16 was introduced at the time of the pandemic, and we have not done so.