S.D. Taylor Ltd and Wilson Tupholme Ltd
| Jurisdiction | UK Non-devolved |
| Judgment Date | 21 June 1985 |
| Date | 21 June 1985 |
| Court | Value Added Tax Tribunal |
VAT Tribunal
See (1985) 2 BVC 205,278.
VAT Tribunal
Input tax - Partially-exempt traders - Method of apportionment of input tax - Whether jurisdiction to consider method of apportionment in absence of ascertained supplies or ascertained amount of tax due - section 40 subsec-or-para (1)Value Added Tax Act 1983, sec. 40(1).
The appellants, two associated companies, were partially-exempt traders. The Commissioners regarded as unsatisfactory the methods used by the appellants to determine their deductible input tax with respect to section 15 subsec-or-para (1)sec. 15(1)(b) of theValue Added Tax Act 1983. Accordingly they proposed by letter a method of apportionment to be adopted from the beginning of the next tax year.
The appellants appealed against that decision, contending that the method proposed by the Commissioners, being based on turnover, was unreasonable and unfair. They maintained that the proper method of assessment was on a calls basis.
The Commissioners argued that the Tribunal had no jurisdiction either under section 40 subsec-or-para (1)sec. 40(1)(c) or (d) of the 1983 Act to hear the appeal, there being neither an ascertained amount nor ascertained supplies as the subject matter of the appeal.
Held, striking out the taxpayers' appeals:
1. No question arose of the proportion of any supplies that were to be taken as taxable supplies for the purposes of section 40 subsec-or-para (1)sec. 40(1)(d), since in order to be eligible to deduct input tax in respect of incoming supplies the whole of such supplies had to have been taxable supplies.
2. Accordingly the issue of the method of apportionment did not fall within section 40 subsec-or-para (1)sec. 40(1)(d).
3. Since there was no amount of input tax in issue, no supplies having been made to the appellants at the date when the disputed direction was issued and no assessment based on an over-deduction of such input tax having yet been made, the appeal did not fall within section 40 subsec-or-para (1)sec. 40(1)(c).
4. The dispute was a challenge to the exercise of a discretion given to the Commissioners.
5. There was no express power to review the exercise of that discretion by the Commissioners.
6. The review sought did not fall within any of the provisions of section 40sec. 40 either directly or indirectly.
7. Accordingly the Tribunal had no jurisdiction to entertain the appeals, which were struck out.
[The Tribunal set out the facts summarised above and continued as follows.]
…
The jurisdiction of these Tribunals is derived from section 40sec. 40 of the Value Added Tax Act 1983, section 40 subsec-or-para (1)subsec. (1) of which by...
To continue reading
Request your trial