Basman (t/a UK Chess Challenge) v Revenue & Customs [2014] UKFTT 194 (TC)
[88]“To amount to a violation of article 4, the work had to be not only compulsory and involuntary, but the obligation to work, or its performance, must be "unjust", "oppressive", "an avoidable hardship", "needlessly distressing" or "somewhat harassing". As we read the judgment, the [European Court of Human Rights] was not [in the Van Der Mussele case] setting out five different categories but was using a variety of expressions to elucidate a single underlying concept, which we have referred to as exploitation. In Van Der Mussele (1983) 6 EHRR 163, at para 40, the court concluded for a combination of reasons that there had been no forced labour within the meaning of article 4.2, having regard to the social standards generally obtaining in Belgium and in other democratic societies. The court therefore considered it unnecessary to decide whether the work in question was in any event justified under article 4.3(d). “ 8. Notwithstanding the Appellant’s subjective assessment that the requirement to complete a tax return is oppressive, the obligation is clearly not exploitative in the sense set out in the decision of the Supreme Court. The Appellant’s case must be bound to fail, and it was for this reason that his appeal was struck out. Any appeal to the Upper Tribunal on this point is hopeless, and an application for permission to appeal is bound to be refused.. 9. The objection to the use of the word “mere” in the Tribunal’s decision is also misplaced. The application of VAT to supplies is determined in accordance with the law, and whether an activity is beneficial to its participants is not a criterion set out in the law as a basis for exempting a supply from VAT. If the Appellant does not like the law, his remedy is not before the courts and tribunals (which have to apply the law), rather his remedy can only be to change the law, and therefore the remedy rests with his MP and MEP. Again, any appeal to the Upper Tribunal on this point is utterly hopeless, and an application for permission to appeal is bound to be refused. 10. For these reasons, the application for an extension of time within which to apply for full written findings and reasons is dismissed. 11. This document contains full findings of fact and reasons for the decision. Any party dissatisfied with this decision has a right to apply for permission to appeal against it pursuant to Rule 39 of the Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009. The application must be received by this Tribunal not later than 56 days after this decision is sent to that party. The parties are referred to “Guidance to accompany a Decision from the First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber)” which accompanies and forms part of this decision notice. NICHOLAS ALEKSANDER TRIBUNAL JUDGE RELEASE DATE: 10 February 2014