[2012] UKFTT 169 (TC)
TC01865
Appeal number:
MAN/2008/1244
VAT – retail schemes – Regulations
67-75 Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 – appellant incorrectly used
Apportionment Scheme 1 – appellant ineligible to use Apportionment Scheme 1 –
assessment of output tax on basis of Apportionment Scheme 1 – appeal allowed in
principle
FIRST-TIER TRIBUNAL
TAX CHAMBER
|
|
MUNAF PATEL
T/A
CLEGGS LANE
SERVICE STATION
|
Appellant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- and -
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE
COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY’S
|
Respondents
|
|
|
REVENUE &
CUSTOMS
|
|
|
TRIBUNAL:
|
JUDGE JONATHAN CANNAN
|
|
|
PETER WHITEHEAD
|
Sitting in public at Manchester on 18 January 2012
Mr Makbul Patel for the Appellant
Mr Bernard Haley, advocate of
HM Revenue and Customs for the Respondents
© CROWN COPYRIGHT
2012
DECISION
Background
1.
The appellant is the sole proprietor of a business known as Cleggs Lane
Service Station in Little Hulton, Manchester. It is a retail petrol station
with a general grocery store attached also selling cigarettes, groceries and
other sundry items. This appeal concerns the appropriate method of calculating the
appellant’s output tax in periods 07/05 to 01/08.
2.
Mr Makbul Patel (“Mr Patel”) who is the appellant’s brother appeared on
behalf of the appellant. He has an accountancy degree and on a part time basis
acted as the appellant’s bookkeeper. He also gave evidence on behalf of the appellant.
3.
The respondents’ advocate Mr Bernard Haley opened the appeal with the
agreement of Mr Patel and called one witness, Mr James Buckley a VAT assurance officer.
4.
We are grateful to both parties for the measured way in which they made
their submissions. In the event, there was no real factual dispute between the
parties.
Retail Schemes
5.
The operation of VAT can pose practical problems for retailers, in particular
ascertaining the output tax due when a retailer has sales at different rates of
VAT. Value Added Tax Act 1994 paragraph 2(6) Schedule 11
recognises these practical problems and provides for regulations to:
" make
special provision for such taxable supplies by retailers of any goods or of any
description of goods or of services or any description of services as may be
determined by or under the regulations and, in particular:
(a)
for permitting the value which is to be taken as the value of the
supplies in any prescribed accounting period or part thereof to be determined,
subject to any limitations or restrictions, by such method or one of such
methods as may have been described in any notice published by the Commissioners
in pursuance of the regulations and not withdrawn by a further notice or as may
be agreed with the Commissioners;
…"
6.
Pursuant to that provision, the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 contain
regulations 67-75 which provide as follows in so far as relevant:
"67(1)
The Commissioners may permit the value which is to be taken as the value, in
any prescribed accounting period or part thereof, of supplies by a retailer
which are taxable at other than the zero rate to be determined by a method
agreed with that retailer or by any method described in a notice published by
the Commissioners for that purpose; and they may publish any notice
accordingly.
(2) The
Commissioners may vary the terms of any method by—
(a)
publishing a fresh notice,
(b)
publishing a notice which amends an existing notice, or
(c)
adapting any method by agreement with any retailer.
…
69
No retailer may at any time use more than one scheme except as
provided for in any notice or as the Commissioners may otherwise allow.
…
71(1) Save as the
Commissioners may otherwise allow a retailer who accounts for VAT on the basis
of taxable supplies valued in accordance with any scheme shall … continue to do
so for a period of not less than one year … and any change by a retailer from
one scheme to another shall be made at the end of any complete year reckoned
from the beginning of the prescribed accounting period in which he first
adopted the scheme.
…
72(1) A retailer shall
notify the Commissioners before ceasing to account for VAT on the basis of
taxable supplies valued in accordance with these regulations.”
7.
Under regulation 67(1) HMRC has published various notices including
Notice 727 which describes the retail schemes available. More particularly
Notice 727/4 describes how to work the Apportionment Schemes 1 and 2 and Notice
727/5 describes how to work the Direct Calculation Schemes 1 and 2. The Notices
identify those parts of the schemes which have the force of law under the
regulations. They do so by means of boxed text which is expressed to have the
force of law.
8.
In broad terms, Apportionment Scheme 1 is a simple scheme designed for
smaller businesses. It involves calculating the value of purchases for resale
at different rates of VAT and applying the proportion of those values to the
total sales in order to calculate the output tax. Apportionment Scheme 2
involves calculating expected selling prices of standard and lower rated goods,
working out the ratio of these to the expected selling prices of all goods
received and applying this ratio to the gross takings.
9.
Direct Calculation Scheme 1 involves calculating the expected selling
price of goods at one or more rates of VAT and calculating the proportion of
takings on which VAT is due. Direct Calculation Scheme 2 is the same as Scheme
1 but involves an annual stock adjustment.
10.
Regulation 67 also makes provision for a retailer to use “a method
agreed with that retailer” which HMRC describe as “bespoke retail schemes”.
If a trader does not apply a retail scheme set out in a notice, or a bespoke
retail scheme agreed with HMRC, he must account for VAT at the appropriate rate
on a transaction by transaction basis.
11.
The schemes described above were introduced in 1997. Immediately prior
to being introduced there were a series of schemes known as Retail Schemes A,
B, C and D. The pre-1997 terminology has been retained by many traders and
indeed officers of HMRC. Hence, Apportionment Scheme 1 is similar to and
sometimes known as Retail Scheme D. Direct Calculation Scheme 1 is similar to
and sometimes known as Retail Scheme B.
12.
There are various Tribunal decisions in which it has been accepted that
by virtue of Regulation 71(1) the Commissioners have a discretion to permit a
trader to change the retail scheme in use with retrospective effect. See for
example Gyte & Gyte v HMCE (VAT Tribunal Decision 16031). The
Commissioners allow such retrospective changes only in exceptional
circumstances and the Tribunal has a supervisory jurisdiction in relation to
such decisions. In other words, it is only if the Commissioners unreasonably
refuse to permit a retrospective change of scheme that the Tribunal can
interfere.
13.
Having set out the nature of the retail schemes and the legislative
framework it is useful to step back and consider what the retail schemes are
designed to provide. The answer is a practical means by which retailers can
identify and account for output tax where they have sales at different rates of
tax. That point was made by Dyson J and subsequently endorsed by the Court of
Appeal in United Norwest v C & E Comrs [1998] STC 1065 at 1070:
“The purpose [of scheme B]
is clear and the aim is to produce a figure which is as accurate as possible
consistent with the simplicity of the method employed by the scheme.”
14.
It is clear that where a retail scheme is operated incorrectly, HMRC is
entitled to make an assessment to reflect the correct operation of the scheme.
See for example Midlands Co-operative Society Ltd v Customs & Excise
Comrs [2002] STC 198 where the taxpayer adopted Scheme B but failed to make
an adjustment required by the Notice in relation to sales where the expected
selling price was not achieved. An appeal against the resulting assessment was
dismissed.
15.
The notices issued by HMRC for each scheme describe the calculation
required to implement that scheme. Those calculations are in boxed text indicating
that they have the force of law. Notice 727 describes the retail schemes
generally. In paragraph 3.7 there is boxed text in relation to Apportionment
Scheme 1 which indicates that the following has the force of law:
“You can only use the
scheme if your total tax exclusive turnover from retail sales does not exceed £1
million”
16.
The Notice does not expressly say so, but we construe that to mean an
annual turnover of £1 million. That gives rise to something of a conundrum
because the tax inclusive turnover is the only figure that is known. In order
to find the tax exclusive turnover it is necessary to use one of the retail
schemes. The effect of paragraph 3.7 must mean, therefore, that if using
Apportionment Scheme 1 gives a tax exclusive turnover exceeding £1 million the
trader is not entitled to use that scheme.
17.
Similarly, in paragraph 3.12 there is boxed text in relation to Direct
Calculation Scheme 1 which indicates that the following has the force of law:
“You cannot use Direct
Calculation scheme (1) if your annual tax exclusive retail turnover exceeds £1
million.”
18.
Paragraph 4.2 of Notice 727, again with the force of law, states in
relation to all the schemes:
“… You must use the
scheme for 12 months, unless:
·
You become ineligible for the scheme you are using or
·
We allow or require an earlier change.
If you become ineligible
you must cease to use the scheme from the end of the next complete accounting
period. ” [emphasis added]
19.
An example is given in the Notice of a trader finding that his turnover
makes him ineligible for the scheme.
The Facts
20.
On the basis of the evidence, which as we say was not in dispute, we
make the following findings of fact.
21.
The appellant commenced business in 1991 and at the same time became
registered for VAT. At that time all the bookkeeping was carried out by a
professional accountancy firm. That firm also prepared annual accounts,
operated a PAYE scheme and prepared VAT returns for the appellant. After a few
years the appellant lost confidence in his accountants and also felt that they
were charging too much. Mr Patel felt that the job was relatively
straightforward and with his experience agreed to do the job himself. The
nature of the business has changed over the years, in particular the general
retail side of the business has expanded.
22.
Mr Patel did not investigate which retail scheme the business had been
using, but felt that it was Retail Scheme B prior to the 1997 changes. When he
took over from the accountants he effectively started from scratch. He looked
at the retail schemes and his recollection is that he was advised by someone in
the industry who had adopted a retail scheme. When the provisions changed in
1997 he was aware of that fact and read notifications including Customs &
Excise Notices issued at the time.
23.
Mr Buckley carried out a routine audit visit in May 2008. He told us in
evidence that the accounting records were in good order, well maintained and
easy to follow. The audit report records that Mr Patel told Mr Buckley that he
had been using the same accounting method since the business started and called
it “Scheme B”. Mr Buckley however identified that no zero rated mark up had
ever been calculated. Mr Patel had told Mr Buckley that the same scheme had
been checked on the last audit visit some 16 years previously and no problems
had been found.
24.
There were a number of documents included in the hearing bundle to which
we were not referred during the course of the hearing. However it is clear that
to some extent they bear on the evidence we heard. The bundle contains a visit
report from April 1992. The visit report identifies Mr Patel as the bookkeeper
but that VAT returns were completed by an accountant. It also records that
Retail Scheme B had been “adopted/approved” on 1 March 1992 and further:
“Calculated zero rated
mark up being used for groceries at 20%. This percentage being used by
accountant to calculate output tax.”
25.
In March 1997 there was a letter from the appellant to Customs &
Excise which was also not referred to during the hearing. It records that the appellant
was at that time using retail Scheme B. The bundle also contains details of a
telephone call to HMRC by Mr Patel on 3 September 2001. We take this to be the appellant’s
brother. The purpose of the call was to request the various Notices dealing
with each of the retail schemes. We find as a fact that Mr Patel consulted
these Notices in September 2001.
26.
From the evidence we have heard and seen we find that the original
accountants had indeed used Scheme B and that Scheme B had been used or intended
to be used by the appellant until at least 1997. At some time between 1997 and
2001 Mr Patel changed the method of calculation. He continued with the new
method of calculation until the visit by Mr Buckley in May 2008. During the
period from at least 2001 to 2008 Mr Patel was well aware from the published
notices how each of the various retail schemes worked. It is significant that
in calculating output tax for the VAT returns Mr Patel told us that he thought
he was using one of the authorised schemes.
27.
The basis upon which Mr Patel calculated the output tax in the periods up
to 2008 was by reference to the following formula:
28.
Mr Buckley considered that this was an incorrect application of
Apportionment Scheme 1 (Retail Scheme D). Instead of using the gross standard
rated goods for resale and the gross total of all goods for resale Mr Patel had
used the net figures, that is the figures exclusive of VAT. In addition no
annual adjustment had been made as required by the notice. Mr Buckley then made
a calculation of output tax using Apportionment Scheme 1 with the gross figures
available to him. The result was under-declared output tax of £10,417 for the
11 periods 07/05 to 01/08. Mr Buckley notified his findings to the appellant
and invited observations.
29.
Mr Patel responded by letter dated 17 June 2008. He disagreed with Mr
Buckley’s conclusions and maintained that he had been using Retail Scheme B
(Direct Calculation Scheme 1). He rejected Mr Buckley’s calculation based on Apportionment
Scheme 1. He also included his own calculations which he said “correctly
applied” Retail Scheme B. For that purpose he enclosed a schedule which
included a calculation of the mark-up on zero-rated goods for resale, said to
be 25%. It is common ground that the schedule then applied Direct Calculation
Scheme 1 in a way which was mathematically correct. The result of Mr Patel’s
calculation was an apparent over-declaration of output tax amounting to
£9,161.49 over the same 11 periods.
30.
In the final paragraph of his letter Mr Patel sought a repayment of
£9,161.49. It is common ground that this request for a repayment was made in
time. However both parties agreed that it would be necessary for Mr Buckley to
have access to the underlying records before the amount of any repayment could
be finalised if the appellant is entitled to use Direct Calculation Scheme 1.
In particular Mr Buckley would need to verify the calculation of the mark up on
zero rated goods. It was also common ground that the different outcome between
the two schemes reflected the fact that the business achieved a higher mark up
on zero rated goods than it did on standard rated goods, of which by far the
most significant was fuel sales.
31.
Mr Buckley maintained his position and issued an assessment in the sum
of £10,417. He stated in correspondence that Mr Patel could not have been using
Scheme B, or a variant of it, correctly or otherwise, because there was no
calculation of the zero-rated mark up. He further considered that this would
amount to retrospective use of another retail scheme which was not permissible.
32.
In response, Mr Patel stated that his original calculations had not been
correct either under Scheme B or Scheme D. However the appellant had previously
told Customs & Excise (as they then were) that Scheme B was in operation.
As such there was no retrospective change.
33.
Mr Patel requested a reconsideration of the assessment. On review, HMRC
maintained that the scheme actually used was based on Apportionment Scheme 1,
albeit the incorrect application of that scheme. During the course of the
review process, the reviewing officer accepted that Mr Patel’s original
calculation “was not according to published rules”. Mr Patel relied on
this in his submissions to us as being a concession which helped the case he
was putting forward on the appeal. We deal with this point below.
34.
We note that Apportionment Scheme 1 is the most straightforward retail
scheme. The attraction to a trader is the simplicity of the scheme reflected in
the nature of the records required to use the scheme and the simplicity of the
calculations. Having said that, Mr Patel in the present case plainly did not
find the scheme simple to use notwithstanding that he had an accountancy degree.
Mr Patel’s evidence was that he had made a basic error. We find that rather
surprising, but we have no reason to doubt Mr Patel’s evidence and indeed HMRC
did not suggest anything other than a simple basic error on the part of Mr
Patel.
The Appellant’s
Submissions
35.
Mr Patel, on behalf of the appellant made the following submissions:
(1)
The actual calculation which he used during the period of assessment was
not according to the published rules. In particular it was not Apportionment
Scheme 1 because:
(a)
It used net purchases in the fraction described above rather than gross
purchases.
(b)
The turnover of the business was more than £1 million.
(2)
The appellant is not seeking to retrospectively change the retail scheme
being used because he was never using a valid scheme in the first place.
(3)
HMRC cannot, as a matter of discretion or otherwise, choose which
published scheme is most suitable for the appellant’s business.
(4)
The appellant is therefore at liberty to use the most appropriate
published scheme, which he contends is Direct Calculation Scheme 1.
(5)
If the appellant does require a retrospective change to the scheme then
it should be allowed.
The Respondents’
Submissions
36.
Mr Haley on behalf of the respondents submitted that when one looks at
the original calculations carried out by the appellant, he intended to use
Apportionment Scheme 1. The calculation bore all the traits of that scheme,
albeit that the calculation was carried out in error. The calculation bore none
of the traits of Direct Calculation Scheme 1.
37.
The turnover restriction of £1 million did not, he submitted, have the
force of law. In those circumstances Mr Haley contended that it is open to HMRC
to recalculate the output tax according to the correct application of
Apportionment Scheme 1
Decision
38.
It has been necessary for the purposes of our decision to go beyond the
submissions which were made to us both in setting out the law above and in
setting out the reasons for our decision. In particular, HMRC only appreciated
during the course of the hearing that the turnover limit of £1 million for Apportionment
Scheme 1 and Direct Calculation Scheme 1 was exceeded in the relevant periods.
39.
We have found as a fact that Mr Patel was intending to use one of the
published retail schemes. The form of the calculation used is consistent only
with Apportionment Scheme 1. We further find therefore that Mr Patel had been
intending to use Apportionment Scheme 1 since at least 2001. In fact however he
put the wrong figures into the calculation.
40.
When a trader incorrectly applies a retail scheme it may be because he
misunderstands the formula. Alternatively he may understand the formula
perfectly well, but simply extracts the wrong figures from his records to put
into the formula. Whatever the reason might be, the trader is still seeking to
account for VAT on the basis of taxable supplies valued in accordance with the
particular scheme. It seems to us that the taxpayer’s intention is relevant in
determining which, if any, retail scheme he is applying. Prior to 1997 that
intention could usually be ascertained from the VAT return itself where the
trader was required to identify the retail scheme being used. Since 1997 there has
been no requirement to indicate on the VAT return which retail scheme is being
used. However the intention of the trader can be ascertained from the evidence.
Mr Patel had read the various notices dealing with each scheme and we are
satisfied that he will have understood them. He had an accountancy background. Mr
Patel himself stated that he was intending to apply one of the published retail
schemes. That could only have been Apportionment Scheme 1. There is no
suggestion that he was concerned with expected selling prices of goods or the
mark up on goods which would be required for the other relevant schemes.
41.
In support of his first submission, Mr Patel relied upon a “concession”
by the review officer that the scheme being operated was not according to the
published rules. We do not accept that we are bound by the view of the review
officer in these circumstances. It is for this Tribunal to apply the law to the
facts as found. In any event the real question as we see it is not whether Mr
Patel’s original calculation was according to the published rules, but whether
or not the appellant was using or intending to use one or other of the
permitted retail schemes.
42.
Mr Patel has produced annual turnover figures exclusive of VAT for the
12 months to 30 April 2006 and 30 April 2007 which are £1,122,818 and
£1,074,151 respectively. The figures he has calculated however are on the basis
of Direct Calculation Scheme 1. On the basis of those figures which we accept,
and on the basis of the level of turnover generally, we find that the appellant
was not entitled to use Direct Calculation Scheme 1 during the periods
assessed. We have carried out our own exercise using Mr Buckley’s figures for
Apportionment Scheme 1. For the same periods the annual turnover figures
exclusive of VAT are £1,115,005 and £1,066,642. On the basis of those figures
and on the basis of the level of turnover generally we find that the appellant
was not entitled to use Apportionment Scheme 1 during the periods assessed.
Indeed it was accepted at the hearing that the turnover threshold had been
breached for both schemes.
43.
In the circumstances the appellant was “ineligible” (in the terminology
employed by Notice 727) to use Apportionment Scheme 1, at least during the
periods assessed. An issue then arises as to the effect of a trader purporting
to use a retail scheme which he was not eligible to use and further incorrectly
implementing the scheme in any event. In those circumstances, HMRC would be
entitled to make an assessment to make good any tax loss if they considered
that the returns were incorrect. Similarly, a trader could make a voluntary
disclosure if he considered that the returns were incorrect and that he had
overpaid tax. In the present case that is what has happened. However we have to
consider whether the assessments and the voluntary disclosure have been made on
an appropriate basis.
44.
HMRC have sought to assess the tax by reference to Apportionment Scheme
1. The question which arises is whether they should recalculate the tax due by
reference to the retail scheme the trader was intending to use, even if the
trader was ineligible to use that scheme? Alternatively whether they should
ignore the scheme that the trader was intending to use and make a best
judgement assessment based on all the evidence available. In the present case
HMRC have done the former. We do not consider that in circumstances such as
this HMRC would have a choice, effectively depending on which gave the better
outcome. That would be inconsistent with the principle of legal certainty. Nor,
to be fair, do HMRC argue that they have such a choice. They say that where a
trader is intending to use a particular retail scheme they are entitled to
ensure the correct application of that scheme. In our view that would not be
controversial in circumstances where the trader was eligible to use the
particular retail scheme. However as a matter of law if a trader is ineligible
to use a particular scheme he must cease to use that scheme (Paragraph 4.2
Notice 727). In the light of that provision we consider that HMRC are not
entitled to assess by reference to a scheme used or intended to be used where
the trader is not eligible to use that scheme. In those circumstances the
assessment ought to be made by reference to best judgement generally, in other
words what approach gives the best estimate of the output tax due.
45.
The whole purpose of the retail schemes is to provide an estimate of the
output tax of a retailer selling goods at different rates of tax. HMRC assessed
using Apportionment Scheme 1 without apparently appreciating that the turnover
limit had been exceeded for the periods in question. In those circumstances
HMRC are entitled to reach a judgement as to what is the best estimate of the output
tax due. That must involve looking at all the available evidence. In the
ordinary course they might be expected to adopt the retail scheme which in
their judgement gave the best estimate. Such an approach does not amount to HMRC
simply choosing the retail scheme which they think most appropriate as the appellant
suggests. Depending on the facts it may be necessary to vary a retail scheme in
order to arrive at the best estimate. Indeed it may well be appropriate,
depending on the facts, to ignore the turnover limits in the published scheme.
The purpose of the process in these circumstances is to arrive at the best
estimate of the tax due, not simply to apply one or other of the retail
schemes.
46.
For the same reasons we reject Mr Patel’s submission that it is open to
the appellant in these circumstances to insist upon a particular retail scheme
being used for the purposes of assessment and/or a voluntary disclosure. The appellant
is in the same position as HMRC. He is entitled to put forward what he
considers to be the best method of calculating the output tax due. As indicated
above, that may be by reference to a particular retail scheme as published or
with variations depending on the facts of the case and the evidence available.
47.
It is notable that Notice 727/4 itself recognises that where a trader
achieves a higher mark up on zero rated goods Apportionment Scheme 1 gives rise
to more output tax than other schemes (Paragraph 3.1.1). In principle,
Direct Calculation Scheme 1 would appear to give a fairer result to a trader in
the position of the appellant. The evidence was, and we accept, that the mark
up on standard rated goods, principally fuel sales, was much lower than the
mark up on zero rated goods such as sandwiches and groceries. However the appellant
could not have used Direct Calculation Scheme 1 because he exceeded the
turnover limit. As we have said, however, for the purposes of identifying the
correct amount of tax it may be appropriate to ignore that limitation because in
challenging the assessment and/or a voluntary disclosure it is not simply a
question of applying a retail scheme, rather it is a question of identifying
whether the assessment is excessive or whether the return overstates the amount
of tax due.
48.
This is not a situation where a trader is seeking to retrospectively
change the scheme being used. Rather he is seeking to identify the output tax
chargeable where he has made incorrect VAT returns. In the circumstances no
question arises as to whether the appellant should be entitled to make a
retrospective change to the retail scheme which was used. In any event, the appellant
is seeking to use Direct Calculation Scheme 1 for which he was ineligible and
it is difficult to see how a refusal in those circumstances could ever be
unreasonable.
Conclusion
49.
The burden is on the appellant to satisfy us that the assessments are
excessive and should be reduced. On the basis of the evidence as to the mark up
on zero rated and standard rated sales we are satisfied that the assessments
are excessive. In principle, therefore, we allow the appeal against the
assessments.
50.
Both parties accepted during the course of the appeal that Mr Buckley
had not had an opportunity to verify the basis of Mr Patel’s calculations using
Direct Calculation Scheme 1. In particular, the mark ups used for different
categories of zero rated goods and the proportion of sales within those
categories. Mr Patel himself did not produce evidence to the Tribunal which
would enable us to form any view on the reliability of those calculations. In
those circumstances we are not in a position to make any decision on the quantum
of the assessment or on the appeal against the voluntary disclosure. It seems
to us that the question of quantum and the appeal against the voluntary
disclosure are all part and parcel of the same issue, namely what is the
correct amount of output tax for which the appellant ought to account.
51.
It may be, and we express no view on this, that there is another method
which could be used on the basis of the available records to give a fairer
result than Apportionment Scheme 1 or Direct Calculation Scheme 1. It will be
necessary for the parties to consider in the light of this decision and on the
basis of the records and explanations available what calculation gives the best
estimate of output tax. If no agreement is possible, the matter can be restored
to the Tribunal for a further hearing on the issue of the quantum of the
assessments and, if appropriate, the appeal against the voluntary disclosure.
52.
We invite the parties to agree directions in relation to the issue of
quantum and the voluntary disclosure. In the absence of agreement either party
can apply to the Tribunal for directions.
53.
This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the
decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for
permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure
(First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be
received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to
that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from
the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this
decision notice.
TRIBUNAL JUDGE
RELEASE DATE: 2 March 2012
