“We’ve received your application. So we can process it, you need to email us copies of your identity documents. For information on how to do this, sign in to ‘Register for VAT’ online and view your existing applications. What happens next After we get copies of your documents, we’ll write to you with a decision on your application. This usually takes us about 30 days. You should wait until your VAT registration is confirmed before you: • get any software • charge customers for VAT From HMRC VAT team”
“73 Failure to make returns etc (1) Where a person has failed to make any returns required under this Act (or under any provision repealed by this Act) or to keep any documents and afford the facilities necessary to verify such returns or where it appears to the Commissioners that such returns are incomplete or incorrect, they may assess the amount of VAT due from him to the best of their judgment and notify it to him.”
“in our view, the F-t T does not have jurisdiction to give effect to any legitimate expectation which Mr Noor may be able to establish in relation to any credit for input tax…. legitimate expectation is a matter for remedy for judicial review in the Administrative Court; the FtT has no jurisdiction to determine the disputed issue in the context of an appeal under section 83.”
“[71] In the present case, the relevant statutory language provides that if certain conditions are fulfilled, the Commissioners 'may assess the amount of VAT due … to the best of their judgment' (s 73(1)), and if they do then an appeal shall lie to the tribunal 'with respect to' the assessment or its amount (s 83(1)(p)). [72] The word 'may' is permissive, not mandatory. It must follow that an assessment is made not by operation of the statute but by a discretion exercised by HMRC. We prefer a construction of s 73(1), and therefore of s 83(1)(p), which recognises and gives effect to that word. We therefore respectfully disagree with the approach adopted in Gore at [30] and [44] (see [65] and [67] above), which treats the word 'may' as descriptive of a separate enforcement function and attributes no weight or meaning to it in the context of s 73(1) looked at on its own terms. [73] A taxpayer has a right of appeal to the tribunal 'with respect to … an assessment … under section 73(1).' Although made in a different context, and indeed in the context of statutory language which is narrower than that in s 83(1)(p) (see [39] above), we agree with the comments of Sales J in Oxfam at [63] as to the ordinary and natural meaning of the phrase 'with respect to'. As a matter of language, it defines the scope of the tribunal's appellate jurisdiction not by reference to any particular legal regime or type of law, but instead by reference to the subject-matter of the subsection.”
“[82] In such circumstances, it seems to us there are good policy reasons for not adopting a construction of s 83(1)(p) which strictly limits the appellate jurisdiction of the FTT in the manner identified in the Gore decision at [30] (see [65] above), and which therefore excludes consideration of a legitimate expectation argument. We refer again to the comments of Sales J in Oxfam quoted at [39] above. Were one to adopt such a restrictive approach, there would be an obvious risk of duplication, delay and potential injustice given the potential for disputes to arise as to which forum any particular challenge should be brought it.”
“[84] Coming back then to where we started our analysis, the critical question in this case (see Beadle at [44]) is whether the relevant statutory scheme expressly or by implication excludes the ability to raise a public law defence of legitimate expectation (again, see Beadle at [44]). For all the reasons given above, we do not consider that s 83(1)(p) does exclude that ability. On the contrary, on the facts of this case and given the broad subject-matter of s 83(1)(p), we see strong reasons for thinking that it would be artificial and unworkable to exclude a defence based on the public law principle of legitimate expectation from the tribunal's appellate jurisdiction. We therefore consider that the FTT did have jurisdiction to determine that question in this case.”
“there is in my opinion no justification for regarding as obiter dictum a reason given by a judge for his decision, because he has given another reason also. If it were a proper test to ask whether the decision would have been the same apart from the proposition alleged to be obiter, then a case which ex facie decided two things would decide nothing.”
“The VAT registration date is important. It’s a fixed date from which you must account for output tax on all your taxable supplies.”
"You cannot include VAT on your invoices until you get your VAT number but you can increase your prices to account for the VAT you’ll need to pay to HMRC."
“You may wish to increase your prices to include VAT. Do not show VAT as a separate item on any invoices you issue until you’ve received your registration number. You can explain to your VAT-registered customers that you’ll be sending them VAT invoices later. Once you’ve got your registration number, you should send them the necessary invoices showing VAT within 30 days. If you’ve asked for voluntary registration, you should start keeping records and accounting for VAT from the date you’re registered. This will normally be the registration date you asked for.”
“Experience shows that the cases where such a claim has succeeded, at any rate in the field of taxation, are relatively few and far between. This is in my view hardly surprising. There is a strong public interest in the imposition of taxation in accordance with the law, and so that no individual taxpayer, or group of taxpayers, is unfairly advantaged at the expense of other taxpayers”
“VAT is a tax of which the economic burden falls upon the ultimate consumer, but which is collected by the trader from the consumer, and accounted for by the trader to HMRC. By contrast, taxpayers seeking to appeal an assessment to income tax, CGT and SDLT are being required to pay, from their own resources, something of which the economic burden falls on them, and which they have not collected, for the benefit of the revenue, from anyone else.”