Colchester Institute Corporation (No 2) v The Commissioners for HMRC
[2024] UKFTT 191 (TC)
Kingston Maurward College v The Commissioners for HMRC
21 March 2023
[2023] UKUT 69 (TCC)
Upper Tribunal
A college lost its appeal over reclaiming VAT. The court said the tax authority's explanation was clear enough, and the college didn't give enough information to support its claim even if the main argument failed.
Key Facts
- •Kingston Maurward College (appellant) appealed a First-tier Tribunal (FTT) decision dismissing its input VAT claim.
- •The appeal concerned procedural fairness: inadequate HMRC pleading and refusal to decide 'in principle' only.
- •The college provided grant-funded and fee-funded education and commercial activities.
- •The FTT dismissed the appeal, finding the college failed to demonstrate claimed tax was 'residual input tax'.
- •The college's argument rested on a 'single business' claim, that all activities were interconnected.
Legal Principles
HMRC must set out its position in its Statement of Case sufficiently for the appellant to prepare their case.
FTT Rules, Rule 25(2); Allpay Limited v. HMRC [2018] UKFTT 273 (TC)
It's not procedurally fair for a party to merely say the other must prove their case; key legal and factual points must be set out in advance.
Fairford Group plc v HMRC [2014] UKUT 329 (TCC)
A tribunal must act fairly, allowing affected parties to address points raised during a hearing.
NHS Lothian Health Board [2022] UKSC 28
A tribunal's duty is to ascertain the 'true' figure, even if it differs from the parties' claims, but this must be based on proper evidence.
HMRC v General Motors [2015] UKUT 605 (TCC); NHS Lothian Health Board [2022] UKSC 28
The Upper Tribunal will be slow to interfere with an FTT's case management discretion unless it's plainly wrong.
Wrottesley v HMRC [2015] UKUT 0637 (TCC)
Outcomes
Appeal dismissed regarding inadequate HMRC pleading.
HMRC's Statement of Case, considered alongside the appellant's 'all-or-nothing' case, was sufficient. The appellant failed to provide alternative arguments or evidence if the 'single business' argument failed.
Appeal dismissed regarding the refusal to decide 'in principle' only.
The FTT had discretion to reject the request for an 'in principle' decision; the appellant's request was made late, the hearing was a final hearing, and sufficient evidence wasn't presented to support an alternative outcome.