[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 >> Skelmersdale Centre Ltd v Customs and Excise [2004] UKVAT V18813 (21 October 2004) URL: http://www.bailii.org/uk/cases/UKVAT/2004/V18813.html Cite as: [2004] UKVAT V18813

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

18813

Output tax – Stoken takings – Whether taxable supply – Interest – Rate of interest – Appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

THE SKELMERSDALE CENTRE LTD Appellant

and –

THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE Respondents

Tribunal: DR K KHAN (Chairman)

MRS R S JOHNSON

Sitting in public in London on 15 September 2004

The Appellant did not appear

Miss Vicky Bowles for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004


 


DECISION

Introduction

1. The disputed decision of the Commissioners is contained in an assessment dated 1 October 2003 in the amount of £646.55. The decision was confirmed in a letter dated 12 January 2004 from the VAT Office. The decision is that output tax in the amount of £645.55 including interest would have to be paid on, inter alia, an amount of cash stolen from the Appellant's premises.
2. The appeal was heard in the Appellant's absence under Rule 26(2) of the VAT Tribunal Rules 1986 SI 1986/590 at the Appellant's request.

Facts

3. The facts giving rise to the assessment are not in dispute.
4. The Appellant is registered for VAT and carries on a business in relation in business hardware.
5. In or around July 2002, the sum of approximately £884.00 was stolen from the Appellant's safe. The money related to the day's takings that had not yet been banked.
6. Customs visited the Appellant on 22 September 2003, and found a discrepancy in the amount of output tax declared and received for the August 2002 period. The discrepancy was £752.31. The output tax on the stolen money is £154.70.

The Appellant's Case

The Appellant appeals on the ground that:

(a) The takings were never banked and therefore the Appellant never received the benefit of the money and should not have to pay VAT on it.

(b) The thieves were arrested but the stolen money was not recovered by the Appellant.

(c) The Appellant further contends that they were not aware that interest would accrue.

The Commissioners' Case

7. That the Appellant was liable to account for VAT on the stolen takings since there had been a supply and VAT is due on that supply under the provisions of Section 6(2) VATA 1994.
8. The Commissioners can charge interest on the VAT due pursuant to Section 74(1).

Decision

9. There was a tax point when the goods were sold by the Appellant and a taxable supply made when the goods were handed to the Customer. What was stolen was the proceeds of the sale. The Appellant is therefore liable to account for tax on the stolen takings, which sum amounts to £154.70 (see Benton [1975] VATTR 138).
10. The Commissioners can charge interest on outstanding output VAT at the applicable rate.

For these reasons the Appeal is dismissed.

DR K KHAN

CHAIRMAN

RELEASED: 21 October 2004

LON/04/192