Adelekun v Revenue and Customs (VAT): UTTC 7 Aug 2020

VAT – appeal against HMRC’s decision to amend effective date of registration – whether FTT correct to find that the evidence in support was the same as advanced on a previous appeal where the appellant had been unsuccessful – no, new evidence was submitted – however even when new evidence considered appellant’s appeal on registration dismissed – appeal on input tax refusals in later period allowed in part.
References: [2020] UKUT 244 (TCC)
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.655544

Upshire Primary Foundation School (Decision Notice) FS50408845: ICO 12 Mar 2012

Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50408845
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.529359

Upshire Primary Foundation School (Decision Notice) FS50435687: ICO 12 Mar 2012

Between 31 January and 10 August 2011 the complainant submitted 16 requests for information to the school. The school dealt with some of the requests. It later stated that subsequent requests were vexatious but did not specify which section of the legislation it was applying. The Information Commissioner considers that the FOIA applies to most of the requests, apart from 2 points in a request of 30 March 2011, to which the EIR applies. The school subsequently applied section 14 to the FOIA requests and regulation 12(4)(b) of the EIR to points 3 and 5 of one of the requests, appropriately. However, the school has breached section 17(5) of the FOIA and regulations 5, 11 and 14 of the EIR.
Section of Act/EIR and Finding: FOI 14 – Complaint Not upheld, FOI 17 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 5 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 11 – Complaint Upheld, EIR 12.4.b – Complaint Not upheld, EIR 14 – Complaint Upheld
References: [2012] UKICO FS50435687
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.529364

Cameron (T/A Carwise v Revenue and Customs: Excs 4 Apr 2008

Excise duty: vehicle containing some rebated fuel on Appellant’s garage premises – whether ‘fuelled’ or ‘used’, circumstances in which neither held to be correct: time of appeal, ‘one month’ restricted to calendar month: whether in circumstances review officer had the appearance of impartiality, having had previous acquaintance with facts in the case; whether ‘charge’ for removal and storage justified or established: Appeal allowed.
References: [2008] UKVAT-Excise E01104
Links: Bailii
Jurisdiction: England and Wales

Last Update: 16 November 2020; Ref: scu.272180