TC09603 - [2025] UKFTT 00931 (TC)

Turning then to what it was that the Respondents decided in the denial letters, Mr Way said that the Respondents had given two reasons for denying the claims Those were that:

The reference to the decision in Zipvit was relevant to the first of the above reasons. Mr Way said that the decision in Zipvit was technically not part of the reasons for the Respondents’ refusal, as such, although he accepted that the reference to the decision could colour the interpretation of what it was that the Respondents were deciding.

He observed that both of the reasons set out in paragraph 28 above related to matters of fact and not of law. The Respondents had expressed no view, either in the denial letters (or, for that matter, in the review conclusion letter), on whether the supplies were exempt or taxable.

The question of what decision the Respondents had made was a “short point of law or construction” on which the FTT “has before it all the evidence necessary for the proper determination of the question” (see First De Sales at paragraph [33(vii)]). It was therefore suitable for summary determination in this application.

In response, Mr Brown said that the first reason given for denying the claims was effectively a decision to the effect that the supplies in question were exempt and not taxable. After all, the agreements between the Appellant and the Suppliers had provided that the payments made by the Appellant were inclusive of VAT. As such, the only way in which those payments could not have included an amount in respect of VAT would have been that the supplies were exempt.