Halil
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Date | 01 January 1993 |
| Court | Value Added Tax Tribunal |
VAT Tribunal
Assessment - Undeclared output tax - An officer visited the restaurant on a control visit in July 1990 - She noticed that the mark-up was low for a pizza restaurant and the cash reconciliation suggested a tax-inclusive deficiency of 19,981 over the period since July 1988 - She then noticed that every second serial number on the "z" readings was missing and that the sums recorded as daily gross takings were 2,352 less than the difference between the first and last z readings - Ten days later a local enquiry team visited unannounced and questioned the appellant, who said that he did not know why most till tails had been torn off just above the cumulative totals - An assessment for 15,826 was notified to the appellant - In November 1990 Customs met the appellant's accountant and it was agreed that the assessment would be amended to reflect the officer's failure to deduct refunds from the cumulative z readings - The accountant wrote to Customs putting forward a cash reconciliation which suggested a modest surplus rather than a deficiency, mainly because a lower figure for wages was put forward and Customs had included no figure for rent received - Customs did not agree but reduced the assessment to reflect refunds - The appellant contended that the cumulative z reading was inaccurate because it did not reflect refunds or corrections; it included additions of cash invoices paid, the till had been used as an adding machine as well as to show the figure for takings and it had been used for staff training - He also disputed the drinks proportion of a drinks to meals exercise carried out by Customs which had shown a similar underdeclaration to that contained in the assessment - He said that the one chef employed could never have coped with the number of customers which Customs' figures suggested - The tribunal held that the original and the amended assessment was made to the officer's best judgment - Further, there was no reason why the assessment should be disturbed - Even if the wages were included in the cash invoices which he added on the till a large gap would still be left, even with personal drawings also included - The appellant, who was a qualified electronic engineer, could not have misunderstood the workings of the till - The suggestion that the difference in cumulative readings was the addition of cash payments had not originally been advanced which was surprising - Customs' cash reconciliation calculations were to be preferred - Contrary to the appellant's assertions, the restaurant had the staff and capacity to achieve the higher turnover forming the basis of the assessment - Appeal dismissed - Value Added Tax Act 1983 schedule 7 subsec-or-para 4Value Added Tax Act 1983, Sch. 7, para. 4(1).
*Note: a separate preliminary issue in this appeal is reported as a full headnote.
VAT Tribunal
Note: The substantive issue under appeal raises no point of general interest and is reported as a synopsis.
The following cases were referred to in the decision:
Bater v Bater UNK[1950] 2 All ER 458
Davy v Garrett ELR(1878) 7 Ch D 473
Deeds Ltd (LON/82/20) No. 1500; VAT(1983) 2 BVC 208,022
Gandhi Tandoori Restaurant VAT(1989) VATTR 39; (1989) 4 BVC 535
Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd v C & E Commrs VAT(1987) 3 BVC 29
GUS Merchandising Corporation Ltd v C & E CommrsVAT[1992] BVC 135
Khawaja v Secretary of State for the Home DepartmentUNK[1983] 1 All ER 765
Stewart Ward (Coins) Ltd VAT(1986) VATTR 129; (1986) 2 BVC 208,105
Tynewydd Labour Working Men's Club and Institute Ltd v C & E Commrs VAT(1979) 1 BVC 282
Assessment - Burden of proof - Whether burden of proof on Customs or on appellant where allegation of fraud implicit - Whether allegation should be set out in statement of case -Value Added Tax Act 1983 schedule 7 subsec-or-para 4Value Added Tax Act 1983, Sch. 7, para. 4(1) - SI 1986/590 section 27Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 (SI 1986/590), r. 27.
The issue was whether it was on the commissioners or on an appellant that the burden of proof lay where a taxpayer had appealed against an assessment for tax based on an underdeclaration of output tax which necessarily involved an allegation of fraudulent conduct.
The appellant was the owner of a restaurant called Pizza Plaza which he had purchased in July 1988. Customs investigated the business and found that a number of till rolls were missing from a consecutive series, to the extent that it appeared...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Elias Gale Racing v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
...cases were referred to in the judgment: Georgiou t/a Marios Chippery [1994] VATTR 125;VAT[1995] BVC 961 Halil VAT(LON/91/295) No. 9590; [1993] BVC 772 IR Commrs v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd ELR[1982] AC 617 Lloyd v McMahon ELR[1987] AC 625 Rahman (t/a Khay......
-
Elias Gale Racing v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
...Keith (instructed by the Solicitor for Customs and Excise) for the Crown. The following cases were referred to in the judgment: Halil VAT[1993] BVC 772 IR Commrs v National Federation of Self-Employed and Small Businesses Ltd ELR[1982] AC 617 Lloyd v McMahon ELR[1987] AC 625 Mario's Chipper......
-
Georgiou and Another (t/a Marios Chippery) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise
...No. 3303; (1989) 4 BVC 535 Grunwick Processing Laboratories Ltd v C & E Commrs VAT(1986) 2 BVC 200,240 Halil VAT(LON/91/295) No. 9590; [1993] BVC 772 Moti Mahal Indian Restaurant VAT(LON/90/1806) and (LON/91/1390) No. 9375; [1993] BVC 718 Seto v C & E Commrs VAT(1980) 1 BVC 363 Sitar Tandoo......
-
Queenspice Ltd
...v C & E CommrsVAT(1980) 1 BVC 378C & E Commrs v Pegasus Birds LtdVAT[2004] BVC 788Akbar v C & E CommrsVAT[2000] BVC 88Halil No. 9590; [1993] BVC 772Sahib Restaurant LtdVAT[2007] BVC 4118Sirpal Trading Co Ltd No. 13,288; [1996] BVC 2296Mithras (Wine Bars) LtdTAX[2009] TC 00051Catering Cuisin......