fbpx

Driving Instructor Stricken by COVID-19 Pays for Ignorance of the VAT Regime

23rd March 2021 By

The VAT regime is far from straightforward and anyone going into business on their own account should take professional tax advice at the outset. In a striking case on point, a driving instructor who was recovering from a life-threatening bout of COVID-19 had reason to regret his ignorance of the law.

The man had initially worked in the so-called gig economy as a franchisee courier for a logistics company. He was self-employed but the company arranged for him to be registered for VAT so that he could reclaim tax paid on his petrol and franchise fees. When he moved on and became a self-employed driving instructor, he maintained his VAT registration and continued to claim back tax as before.

Due to his complete lack of understanding of the VAT system, he did not charge VAT to his clients and failed to keep all the VAT receipts he should have done. After an investigation by HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC), retrospective VAT assessments were raised against him totalling more than £20,000.

Ruling on his challenge to those bills, the First-tier Tribunal (FTT) noted that his income fell far below the threshold at which registration for VAT is compulsory. Due to his ongoing registration, however, he was required to charge his customers VAT on his taxable outputs. Although he was entitled to reclaim input tax on his petrol costs and other allowable business expenses, he was obliged to retain VAT receipts or other evidence of relevant transactions that would be acceptable to HMRC.

In upholding his appeal in part, the FTT noted that he had presented other evidence, including bank statements, in an attempt to fill in gaps in the trail of VAT receipts. HMRC had in some respects failed to exercise its discretion whether to allow his input tax claims in the light of that evidence. Some of the assessments were set aside and the man’s overall bill was reduced to £3,408.

The FTT noted the possibility of further VAT assessments being raised against him. However, it urged HMRC to take into account his perilous state of health when deciding whether or not to take such a course. Together with a chronic kidney condition, which required daily dialysis, he had recently spent two months in hospital suffering from COVID-19, including three weeks in intensive care on a ventilator.

The assessments had also had a serious impact on his mental health and the FTT observed that, after his defaults were identified, he had responded to HMRC’s inquiries in an honest and straightforward manner.

Source: Concious

Latest News

Company Owner's Negligible Value Claim Unsuccessful

29th April, 2024 By

When an asset falls in value to the point that it is almost worthless, it may be possible to make a negligible value claim under Section 24 of the Taxation of Chargeable Gains Act 1992. The asset will then be treated as if it had been sold and immediately acquired again, so that the loss can be set off against other income. For a claim to succeed, however, the asset must have become of negligible value during the time the claimant owned it. On 30 September 2017, a woman who...

Court Sanctions Leg Amputation for Man Lacking Mental Capacity

24th April, 2024 By

The courts are often called upon to sanction treatment for patients whose ability to make decisions for themselves is impaired. In a recent case on point, the Court of Protection had to decide whether it was in the best interests of a man with mental health issues to have his right leg amputated above the knee. The man, aged 60, was taken to hospital by his niece. He was found to have an ulcerated leg. He had a history of paranoid schizophrenia, and believed that the sores on his leg...

High Court Grants Parental Order Despite Previous Adoption

18th April, 2024 By

In law, adopted children are regarded as having been born to their adoptive parents. The Family Division of the High Court recently considered whether that fact precluded a parental order being granted under the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (HFEA) in respect of a child born via surrogacy. A couple who lived in the USA had entered into a surrogacy arrangement with another woman. An adoption order naming the couple as the child's parents had been made by a US court and was automatically recognised under UK law. However,...

Flat Owner Not Liable for Pre-existing Structural Issues

16th April, 2024 By

When building owners carry out works on their property, are they liable for damage to adjoining properties that results from pre-existing structural issues? The Court of Appeal recently provided welcome clarification on that question. The owner of a ground-floor flat wished to extend it by building out into his garden. He served notices on owners of adjoining properties, as required by the Party Wall etc. Act 1996. The works caused the rear wall of two adjoining properties to drop by about 2 mm, which led to internal walls and floor...