Islinkup Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18554 (25 March 2004)

BAILII [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 >> Islinkup Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18554 (25 March 2004)
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18554.html
Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18554

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

Islinkup Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18554 (25 March 2004)

    ASSESSMENT TO BEST JUDGMENT — monies received from Italian company — no evidence provided by Appellant for basis of payment — Commissioners treated as income — no one appeared for the Appellant — appeal dismissed

    MANCHESTER TRIBUNAL CENTRE

    ISLINKUP LIMITED Appellant

    - and -

    THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

    Tribunal: D S PORTER (Chairman)

    Mr M FAROOQ (Member)

    Sitting in public in Manchester on 20 February 2004

    No one appeared for the Appellant

    Mr N Bird of counsel for the Solicitor for the Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

    © CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


     

    DECISION

  1. This is an appeal by Islinkup Limited (the Appellant) against a decision of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise (the Commissioners) assessing the Appellant to VAT in the sum of £17,508.00 representing arrears for the period 05/01 to 11/01 by an assessment dated 4th November 2002. The Appellant alleges that the receipts recorded in its Bank account represented expenses. The Respondents consider that they were payments for work done.

    2. The Parties

  2. Mr N Bird of counsel appeared for the Commissioners, called Mr J J Martin and produced a bundle of documents for the Tribunal. As no one appeared for the Appellant this Tribunal determined to proceed under rule 26(2) of the Value Added Tax Rules 1986 (as amended).

    3. Preliminary Issue

  3. The Tribunal were advised by the Clerk to the Tribunal that the hearing notice addressed to 42, Warwick Road, Kenilworth, Warwickshire. CV8 1HE had been returned, indicating that the Occupiers had gone away. This is the address, which had been used for all correspondence with the Appellants and is the registered office of the Appellant. We therefore found that the notice had been properly served and it was for the Appellant to advise the Tribunal of their new address, if there was one. The Tribunal would therefore proceed in the Appellants' absence.

    4. The Facts

  4. The Appellant carried on business providing technical support and computer services including management services, software development and data management from 42 Warwick Road.

  5. The Appellant is registered for VAT under registration number 770 2346 43 with effect from 2 February 2001

  6. An officer from the Respondents visited the Appellant on 12th March 2002 at the home address of Mary Mariott, who described herself as a "General Manager". She is not employed by the Appellant, but by Geobase Consultants Limited. The Appellant did not initially have a bank account and payments due to the Appellant from Geobase and, other customers were paid in to Mrs Marriott's bank account. The Appellants' sole Director is Martin Ford, who lives in Italy.

  7. From the information obtained from the Appellant, it appeared that the returns were incomplete or incorrect, in that output tax was underdeclared and input tax overclaimed.

  8. Mr Martin gave evidence. He is an assurance officer based at Coventry. He wrote to the Appellant on several occasions and eventually on 15th April 2002 setting out the payments into the Bank and indicating that he considered that they represented " a consideration in respect of a supply of services", the nature of the supply being the provision of IT and office support services primarily to Geobase Consultants Limited. He also disallowed the input tax reclaimed for petrol for the periods. (See pages 10 and 11 of the bundle). He therefore assessed the Appellants to £17,508 of VAT plus interest of £4.73 (see the notice of assessment at page 16 in the bundle). He was prepared to reconsider the assessment if the Appellant could produce evidence to the effect that the payments were not for services rendered. This the Appellant had not done.

  9. We find as fact the matters set out in paragraphs 4 to 8 above.

    10. Summing Up

  10. Mr Bird submitted that no evidence had been produced to dispute the basis on which Mr Martin had raised the assessment. Only the banking made to the accounts of the Appellant and Mrs Marriott had been used and no other sources of income had been introduced. In the circumstances the assessments were to best judgment and the appeal should be dismissed

    11. The Decision

  11. My colleague and I have considered the facts in this case and have decided that the assessment is to best judgment and we dismiss the appeal.

  12. We also award costs of £650 to the Commissioners as there has been no attempt by the Appellant to answer the concerns of the Respondents and it has failed to be represented today.

    13. D S PORTER
    CHAIRMAN
    Released:

    MAN/03/0204\

BAILII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback | Donate to BAILII
URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18554.html