[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 >> Bell v Revenue & Customs [2008] UKVAT V20811 (18 September 2008) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2008/V20811.html Cite as: [2008] UKVAT V20811

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

20811

MARK-UP ASSESSMENT – Appellant did not appear – appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

DAVID ANTHONY BELL Appellant

- and -

THE COMMISSIONERS FOR HER MAJESTY'S

REVENUE AND CUSTOMS Respondents

Tribunal: DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)

JOHN ROBINSON

Sitting in public in London on 12 September 2008

The Appellant did not appear and was not represented

Simon Chambers, Senior Officer of HM Revenue and Customs, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2008


 


DECISION

1. Mr David Anthony Bell, trading as The Wheatsheaf Inn, appeals against an assessment to VAT for £44,085 plus interest issued on 15 February 2007, the amount of which was reduced on 5 July 2007 to £27,041 plus interest. The Appellant did not appear and was not represented, although he had a representative, Mr B S Robinson, accountant and auditor, on the record; the Respondents ("Customs") were represented by Mr Simon Chambers.
2. We decided to hear the appeal in the Appellant's absence. We might add that we regard it as discourteous to the Tribunal for a representative not to inform the Tribunal that neither he nor his client proposed to attend.
3. We heard evidence from officer Mark Beeching and find the following facts:

(1) Mr Beeching visited the Appellant at The Wheatsheaf Inn, Warden Road, Eastchurch, Sheppey, Kent on 17 November 2006 and learnt that the Appellant had claimed input tax on all purchases except wages, that there were no records for the second till that was operated in the summer, and that the mark-up achieved according to the accounts was 72.6 per cent.

(2) Mr Beeching made the assessment by calculating the mark-up on the three best selling lines, Old Speckled Hen, Carling and Stella, for period 05/06, originally calculating this as 129.16 per cent but this contained an arithmetical error which he corrected to give a figure of 91.15 per cent, which is the cause of the revised assessment. He made an allowance for wastage and promotions of 5 per cent, based on his experience, reducing the purchases of stock for 2005 and 2006 in the Appellant's accounts by this percentage and then applying the mark-up of 91.15 per cent. This resulted in additional VAT due for 2006 of £1,776.77 and for 2006 of £1,485.75. As the VAT periods were not co-terminus with the accounting period he applied the monthly amount for 2006 to the 13 month period ending 08/06, and applied the monthly amount for 2005 to the 20 month period 02/04 to 08/05, not having a stock purchase figure for 2004. This resulted in a total output tax of £4,400.98.

(3) He scheduled all purchases for the six month period from 1 December 2005 to 31 May 2006 and calculated that for the first three months 54.10 per cent of the input tax claimed was allowable, and for the second three-months 53.54 per cent. He rounded this down to 55 per cent and applied it to the purchases for the whole period, resulting in input tax disallowed of £22,648.79.

(4) The revised assessment is for the total of these two figures.

4. The burden of proof is on the Appellant to disprove the assessment and he has done nothing to discharge this. We have considered the method used for the assessment and the figures and find them fair. In particular, we were initially concerned about using the monthly additional output tax figure calculated for 2005 for the earlier year but in the absence of a figure for stock purchases for 2004 we see no alternative. Although the outputs will show seasonal variations the average monthly amount takes this into account.
5. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal.

JOHN F AVERY JONES

CHAIRMAN

RELEASE DATE: 18 September 2008

LON/07/1431