The issue on this appeal is whether Regency Factors Ltd is entitled to bad debt relief in relation to VAT. The FTT (Judge Thomas) held that it was not (a) because there was no bad debt; and (b) because Regency had failed to comply with the procedural requirements for the making of such a claim. The UT (Bacon J and Judge Cannon) disagreed with the FTT on the first of those reasons, but upheld the second. The UT held, contrary to Regency’s argument (which does not appear to have been advanced in the FTT), that the procedural requirements were compatible with EU law. The decision of the FTT is at [2019] UKFTT 0144 (TC), [2019] STI 1015; and the decision of the UT is at [2020] UKUT 357 (TCC).
Regency appealed against the decision of the UT on the second question; but HMRC also sought to reinstate the decision of the FTT on the first. At the conclusion of the argument on the appeal we announced that we would dismiss the appeal on the second question, with written reasons to follow. In consequence we did not hear argument on the points raised in HMRC’s Respondent’s Notice dealing with the first question. These are my reasons for joining in that decision.
Source: bailii.org
