18680

ASSESSMENT – appellant voluntarily registered as an intending trader in respect of one business – subsequently carried on another business without declaring the output tax not understanding that the registration covered both businesses – appeal dismissed

LONDON TRIBUNAL CENTRE

	HAYDN WALDON THOMAS	Appellant

	- and -

	THE COMMISSIONERS OF CUSTOMS AND EXCISE	Respondents

			Tribunal:	DR JOHN F AVERY JONES CBE (Chairman)
					RICHARD CORKE FCA

Sitting in public in Cardiff on 2 April 2004

The Appellant in person

Mrs P Crinnion, senior officer, HM Customs and Excise, for the Respondents

© CROWN COPYRIGHT 2004
DECISION

1.	Mr H W Thomas appeals against an assessment to VAT of £2,223 which was notified to the Appellant on or about 24 March 2003.  The Appellant appeared in person; Mrs P Crinnion appeared for the Commissioners.
2.	The Appellant applied for and was granted voluntary registration as an intending trader from 19 November 1998 for a book publishing business under the name Resarton Books.  That business was not a success.  Outputs for the sale of books were declared of £136 in period 05/01 and £13 in period 08/01.
3.	The Appellant started another business in July 2000 under the name LTC Building Services.  He tried to register this business for VAT and was told in a letter of 4 April 2002 from the registration unit that the existing registration applied to this business.  He was told to include all outstanding tax liabilities on the next VAT return.  In his return for 05/02 he included £14,609 as outputs from the LTC Building Services business but no corresponding output tax.  He wrote a covering letter which he sent with the return to Southend on 4 June 2002 saying that “For box 6 (total value of sales) I have inserted the total gross amount I have earnt (sic) from LTC Building Services from 20-7-99 to 31-5-02 because it relates to the vat I’ve re-claimed on the form.”  The letter was not forwarded by Southend to the Cardiff office which dealt with the Appellant.  He thought that until that business reached the registration limit he did not have to account for any tax.  Later, on 4 December 2002 the Cardiff office made telephone contact with the Appellant and ascertained that he was carrying on the LTC business but not declaring any output tax.  This resulted in a visit on 26 February 2003 by an officer of the Commissioners, Mr C A Williams, who gave evidence, at which he obtained details of the undeclared output tax, resulting in the assessment under appeal.
4.	The Appellant’s case is that he did not understand that the voluntary registration comprised all business he carried on as a sole trader.  Nor did he understand the effect of the letter of 4 April 2002 from the registration unit which he thought he was complying with by declaring the outputs from the LTC business without needing to pay any output tax.  He contends that it is unfair to charge him tax when he did not charge tax to his customers.
5.	Mrs Crinnion for the Commissioners contends that the Appellant was registered and accordingly has to pay output tax on the LTC business.
6.	In our view the assessment is correct in law and we do not have any power to give any concession to the Appellant because he has not charged tax to his customers.  Mrs Crinnion did, however, agree to waive any interest before June 2002 when the Commissioners became aware of the position.  We direct the Commissioners to send the Appellant a recalculation of the interest.  In their letter of 9 June 2003 the Commissioners did suggest to the Appellant that he could request additional time to pay.
7.	Accordingly we dismiss the appeal.

J F AVERY JONES

CHAIRMAN
RELEASED 23/06/2004

LON/03/639