InNT ADA v HMRC[2016] UKFTT 642 (19 September 2016) the FTT found that decisions which the appellant contended were not appealable were appealable.
HMRC had decided that NTJ (which became NT ADA) should be registered for VAT and informed the company by letter dated 29 October 2012. NTJ contended however that the letter did not fall within either VATA 1994 s 83(1)(a) or s 83(1)(b) as it had not been in relation to actual registration but only to the threat of registration and there had been no decision on the amount chargeable. This was therefore not an ‘appealable’ decision.
The FTT found that the issue between the parties was whether as stated in the letter NTJ should be registered. This issue stated in writing was not ‘in the abstract or on a hypothetical basis’; it was...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
InNT ADA v HMRC[2016] UKFTT 642 (19 September 2016) the FTT found that decisions which the appellant contended were not appealable were appealable.
HMRC had decided that NTJ (which became NT ADA) should be registered for VAT and informed the company by letter dated 29 October 2012. NTJ contended however that the letter did not fall within either VATA 1994 s 83(1)(a) or s 83(1)(b) as it had not been in relation to actual registration but only to the threat of registration and there had been no decision on the amount chargeable. This was therefore not an ‘appealable’ decision.
The FTT found that the issue between the parties was whether as stated in the letter NTJ should be registered. This issue stated in writing was not ‘in the abstract or on a hypothetical basis’; it was...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
.jpg?sfvrsn=335a554c_0 "300 x 250 (MPU)")