UT-2024-000123 - [2025] UKUT 00360 (TCC)

In the course of the hearing, we were provided with a schedule of the decisions relevant to the post-April 2009 Objection. The post-April 2009 objection applied to lines 18-20 (Removable contents), 23-24 (Verandas) and 27(2) (Gaming machines). The relevant decisions of HMRC were as follows:

We have no doubt that the FTT was correct in its conclusions recorded at FTT [96]-[97].

As the FTT noted, each of the appeals in lines 18-20, 23-24 and 27 (2) were made in respect of individual appealable decisions, being assessments or rejected claims. In each case the decision post-dates 1 April 2009. The FTT correctly concluded, therefore, that the appeals in respect of those decisions were not within the terms of the transitional provisions of Schedule 3 TTF Order.

As the FTT correctly observed a “decision” for the purposes of paragraph 4 Schedule 3 to TTF Order means a decision “relating to a matter to which section 83 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 applies. In other words it must be an appealable decision in the sense that it relates, as the FTT stated, to “matters within section 83 VATA which are adverse to the Appellant.”

We agree that the individual decisions listed above cannot be disregarded in favour of a more generalised disputed decision concerning the correct generic VAT treatment of the supplies in question. As the FTT said at FTT [97]:

“… For present purposes in order for there to be an amount determined as repayable on an appeal there must be an amount which is identified within the scope of the appeal by reference to the decision under appeal i.e. the individual decision of HMRC and first of the taxpayer in a specific and identifiable amount. It is such a decision which must’ve been made and notified prior to 1 April 2009 in order for section 84(8) Interest to be payable.”

We regard the FTT’s reasoning in this regard to be unimpeachable.

Accordingly, had it been necessary to do so, we would have dismissed the Company’s appeal on its Ground 1.