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

Mr Beal submitted that all the appeals were against decisions in principle of the “VAT chargeable on the supply of any goods or services” and were properly brought under what is now section 83(1)(b). The majority of the appeals were brought either against assessments or were expressly made under section 83(1)(b). Moreover, each of the relevant appeals related to decisions by HMRC as to “the VAT chargeable on the supply of any goods or service” (the relevant supplies being removable contents of caravans, verandas, bingo participation, and gaming machines). Sections 83(1)(b) and section 83(1)(t) were not mutually exclusive (Cresta). (Footnote: ¹³)

HMRC’s submissions to the contrary were wrong. It depended entirely on HMRC’s submission that HMRC had not, in the section 80 claims at issue, determined any amount to be payable.

There had been, according to Mr Beal, rulings as to the standard rating of each of the supplies is a necessary precursor to each of the relevant decisions. The reasoning of the FTT at [140]-[148] discloses no error of law. Moreover, claims for repayment will inevitably involve a determination of the underlying liability to tax, except in cases of purely clerical error (which was not relevant in the present case).

This was not a case where there was no decision. As the FTT noted in Mather, a refusal to process a repayment claim was a rejection of the repayment claim and could be appealed. In that case (see [27]), it was a deliberate refusal to give a decision of any type. (Footnote: ¹⁴)