ICAS ICAS logo

Quicklinks

  1. About Us

    Find out about who we are and what we do here at ICAS.

  2. Find a CA

    Search our directory of individual CAs and Member organisations by name, location and professional criteria.

  3. CA Magazine

    View the latest issues of the dedicated magazine for ICAS Chartered Accountants.

  4. Contact Us

    Get in touch with ICAS by phone, email or post, with dedicated contacts for Members, Students and firms.

Login
  • Annual renewal
  • About us
  • Contact us
  • Find a CA
  1. About us
    1. Governance
  2. Members
    1. Become a member
    2. Newly qualified
    3. Manage my membership
    4. Benefits of membership
    5. Careers support
    6. Mentoring
    7. CA Wellbeing
    8. More for Members
    9. Area networks
    10. International communities
    11. Get involved
    12. Top Young CAs
    13. Career breaks
    14. ICAS podcast
    15. Newly admitted members 2022
    16. Newly admitted members 2023
  3. CA Students
    1. Student information
    2. Student resources
    3. Learning requirements
    4. Learning updates
    5. Learning blog
    6. Totum Pro | Student discount card
    7. CA Student wellbeing
  4. Become a CA
    1. How to become a CA
    2. Routes to becoming a CA
    3. CA Stories
    4. Find a training agreement
    5. Why become a CA
    6. Qualification information
    7. University exemptions
  5. Employers
    1. Become an Authorised Training Office
    2. Resources for Authorised Training Offices
    3. Professional entry
    4. Apprenticeships
  6. Find a CA
  7. ICAS events
    1. CA Summit
  8. CA magazine
  9. Insight
    1. Finance + Trust
    2. Finance + Technology
    3. Finance + EDI
    4. Finance + Mental Fitness
    5. Finance + Leadership
    6. Finance + Sustainability
  10. Professional resources
    1. Anti-money laundering
    2. Audit and assurance
    3. Brexit
    4. Business and governance
    5. Charities
    6. Coronavirus
    7. Corporate and financial reporting
    8. Cyber security
    9. Ethics
    10. Insolvency
    11. ICAS Research
    12. Pensions
    13. Practice
    14. Public sector
    15. Sustainability
    16. Tax
  11. CPD - professional development
    1. CPD courses and qualifications
    2. CPD news and updates
    3. CPD support and advice
  12. Regulation
    1. Complaints and sanctions
    2. Regulatory authorisations
    3. Guidance and help sheets
    4. Regulatory monitoring
  13. CA jobs
    1. CA jobs partner: Rutherford Cross
    2. Resources for your job search
    3. Advertise with CA jobs
    4. Hays | A Trusted ICAS CA Jobs Partner
    5. Azets | What's your ambition?
  14. Work at ICAS
    1. Business centres
    2. Meet our team
    3. Benefits
    4. Vacancies
    5. Imagine your career at ICAS
  15. Contact us
    1. Technical and regulation queries
    2. ICAS logo request

The Court of Session demonstrated how to exercise judgement in a reclaim stretching back years where records have been lost or destroyed

  • LinkedIn (opens new window)
  • Twitter (opens new window)
By Jan Garioch CA

4 May 2020

Main points:

  • The FTT and Upper Tribunal had rejected the claim due to the insufficiency of evidence.
  • The Court of Session had no hesitation in overturning this on the grounds that difficulties with proof were not grounds to reject the claim.
  • It found the appellant was entitled to some repayment and was not itself responsible for the difficulty in providing proof.

Jan Garioch CA discusses a recent case, NHS Lothian Health Board v HMRC, which saw the Court of Session refuse to see an evident entitlement to recover input VAT fail because of the difficulty in providing evidence in support.

A claim for unrecovered VAT attributable to taxable supplies

The Court of Session hearing was the third bite of the cherry for Lothian Health Board (LHB) in its quest to reclaim input VAT attributable to the element of its supplies going back to 1974 which were taxable. Most of LHB’s activities are non-business activities but it and its predecessors had some taxable supplies from laboratories carrying out some work outside the NHS, performing services for local authorities and pharmaceutical companies. No claim had been made for input VAT incurred to make taxable supplies until the issue of “Fleming claims” arrived on the scene.

Following the House of Lords judgement in 2008 on the Fleming case, claims for recovery of input VAT incurred before 1 May 1997 could be made without any time limit provided that the claim was made before 1 April 2009. LHB submitted claims going back to 1974 but HMRC refused the claims because of the difficulty in providing supporting evidence.

The Court’s judgement on how to tackle a historical claim

Despite the fact that LHB had lost at both FTT and Upper Tribunal, the Court had little difficulty in overturning that and reaching a decision in its favour. The Court’s bird’s eye view of the case was that a right to repayment exists, and indeed was agreed by all parties from the outset. Therefore, the Court set out the fundamental question to be answered as “whether, in general terms, the taxpayer’s calculation is more likely to be correct than the counter argument for HRMC that no or significantly less input tax is due to be repaid”.

The Court acknowledged that there were deficiencies in the evidence but it homed in on where the responsibility for that lay. They found that absence of evidence related firstly to it being a historical claim which could not have been brought earlier because of deficiencies in UK legislation and secondly to government practices regarding input tax claims by public authorities. For a significant period, the Scottish Office handled VAT reporting for NHS boards and it was not its practice to make claims to recover VAT on business activities.

Consequently, the Court found that difficulties of proof were not sufficient reason to reject the possibility of quantification. With a starting point that the appellant was entitled to some repayment and was not itself responsible for the difficulty in providing proof, the Court held that the case had to be referred back to a differently constituted FTT which must identify a satisfactory methodology to permit quantification.

What had gone wrong before the case reached the Court of Session?

It was the responsibility of the FTT to establish on the balance of probabilities (the ordinary civil standard of proof) whether the appellant’s calculation could be upheld. The Court found the FTT made heavy weather of that task because it wanted to be presented with arithmetical calculations based on financial records so that it could make its decision with something approaching certainty.

What they were presented with instead was a request to extrapolate backwards from the agreement which the appellant and HMRC reached on calculations for the year 2006/2007.  LHB put forward witnesses to substantiate that the activities of the laboratories did not change during the period of the claims and argued it was reasonable to infer that the nature of the inputs would not have changed markedly throughout that period.

The FTT demanded much greater certainty, stating it wanted “to have a verifiable percentage, calculated by reference to prime records at regular intervals, and suggested that for a 25-year period it was looking to have verifiable figures every five years”. Subsequently, the Upper Tribunal also found that LHB’s extrapolation method was not a sufficiently precise or satisfactory basis for a claim. Both Tribunals failed to exercise the judgement that the Court found to be required. The correct approach should have been to weigh up the strength of the evidence available, the reason for absence of other evidence and the coherence of the reasoning that was being claimed to support the inferred amount of input tax recoverable.

Back to FTT with a direction to adequately address the secondary evidence

The Court commented that there could have been circumstances where its approach would have differed. If it had found that the appellant had not kept proper records, or had destroyed them prematurely, it could envisage finding that the taxpayer had failed to make a reclaim calculation on a sound basis. It had sympathy with the concept that the Tribunal did not function as a detective with a duty to fix a figure regardless of the quality of evidence.

However, in this case the FTT took the wrong approach in relying fundamentally on the absence of primary evidence and failing to adequately address secondary evidence that could establish the reasonableness of the claim. The Court despatched this case back to a differently constituted FTT with the cheery hope that “extensive evidence has been led and it may well be possible for the Tribunal to make use of that evidence in coming to a decision”.

HMRC update on VAT payment deferral in the light of COVID-19

8 April 2020

Matchmaking services and VAT

By Jan Garioch CA

13 December 2019

2-23-marsh 2-23-marsh
ICAS logo

Footer links

  • Contact us
  • Terms and conditions
  • Modern slavery statement
  • Privacy notice
  • CA magazine

Connect with ICAS

  • Facebook (opens new window) Facebook Icon
  • Twitter (opens new window) Twitter Icon
  • LinkedIn (opens new window) LinkedIn Icon
  • Instagram (opens new window) Instagram Icon

ICAS is a member of the following bodies

  • Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies (opens new window) Consultative Committee of Accountancy Bodies logo
  • Chartered Accountants Worldwide (opens new window) Chartered Accountants Worldwide logo
  • Global Accounting Alliance (opens new window) Global Accounting Alliance
  • International Federation of Accountants (opens new window) IFAC
  • Access Accountancy (opens new window) Access Acountancy

Charities

  • ICAS Foundation (opens new window) ICAS Foundation
  • SCABA (opens new window) scaba

Accreditations

  • ISO 9001 - RGB (opens new window)
© ICAS 2022

The mark and designation “CA” is a registered trade mark of The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland (ICAS), and is available for use in the UK and EU only to members of ICAS. If you are not a member of ICAS, you should not use the “CA” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to accountancy, tax or insolvency services. The mark and designation “Chartered Accountant” is a registered trade mark of ICAS, the Institute of Chartered Accountants of England and Wales and Chartered Accountants Ireland. If you are not a member of one of these organisations, you should not use the “Chartered Accountant” mark and designation in the UK or EU in relation to these services. Further restrictions on the use of these marks also apply where you are a member.

ICAS logo

Our cookie policy

ICAS.com uses cookies which are essential for our website to work. We would also like to use analytical cookies to help us improve our website and your user experience. Any data collected is anonymised. Please have a look at the further information in our cookie policy and confirm if you are happy for us to use analytical cookies: