[Home] [Databases] [World Law] [Multidatabase Search] [Help] [Feedback]
	United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions
You are here: BAILII >> Databases >> United Kingdom VAT & Duties Tribunals Decisions >> Boss Property Ltd v Customs and Excise [2005] UKVAT V18966 (08 March 2005) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2005/V18966.html Cite as: [2005] UKVAT V18966

[New search] [Printable RTF version] [Help]

18966

ASSESSMENT – whether sufficient proof of export – no – whether invoices omitted from return – yes – appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

BOSS PROPERTY LIMITED Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)

MICHAEL SILBERT FRICS

Sitting in public in London on 4 March 2005

Timi Samson AFA, Tos & Co, accountants, for the Appellant

Jeremy Hyam, counsel, instructed by the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2005


 


DECISION

1. This is an appeal by Boss Property Limited against an assessment dated 29 October 2002, originally in the sum of £26,780 and now reduced to £12,098. Mr Timi Samson appeared for the Appellant, and Mr Jeremy Hyam for the Commissioners.
2. There are now only two outstanding issues. The first is whether VAT of £2,234 is payable on the supply of a composite mezzanine floor on the basis that it was exported. The Appellant has supplied to the Commissioners a copy of the purchase order from CB Engineering Limited, an Irish company, and a bank deposit slip for £15,000. Mr Hyam contends that this falls far short of evidence of export. We agree. For example, the supply might easily have been made to the UK branch of the Irish company. There being no proof of export we agree that VAT is payable.
3. The second issue concerns three invoices, Nos 141, 145 and 146, issued to an entity called Petrushkin. The only evidence was a listing of invoices produced by the Appellant on which these invoices are listed as being dated 28 August 2001 and therefore fall into the period ended 31 August 2001. Mr Samson agrees that they were not included in that period, and told us that the Appellant had not included them in the next period either (although they are included in the accounts to September 2001) because the customer had gone into liquidation and they would not be paid. Mr Hyam contends that it is clear that they should have been included in the VAT return for the period to 31 August 2001 and that whether the Appellant made or, it may be, was entitled to make, a bad debt relief claim in some later period was irrelevant. We agree.
4. Mr Samson raised some questions about the state of the Appellant's liability to the Commissioners or vice versa, which the Commissioners have agreed to deal with, and which do not raise questions for our determination.
5. Accordingly we dismiss the appeal. There is no claim by the Commissioners for costs.

JOHN F AVERY JONES

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE DATE: 8 March 2005

LON/03/846