If HMRC carry out an inspection and decide that VAT has been underdeclared (eg: either by understating sales, applying the incorrect VAT rate, or overclaiming input tax) an inspector has the power to issue an assessment to recover VAT that it is considered underdeclared. This is set out in The VAT Act 73(1)
“Where a person has failed to make any returns … or where it appears to the Commissioners that such returns are incomplete or incorrect, they may assess the amount of VAT from him to the best of their judgment and notify it to him”.
So, the law requires that when an inspector makes an assessment (s)he must ensure that the assessment is made to the best of their judgement, otherwise it is invalid and will not stand.
Guidance to surviving a VAT inspection here.
HMRC’s methods of assessing cash businesses here.
Definition of best judgment
Per Van Boeckel vs HMCE (1981) the judge set out three tests:
- HMRC must make a value judgment on the material set before it honestly and bona fide and not knowingly set an inflated figure and then expect the taxpayer to disprove it on appeal
- there must be material available
- HMRC is not expected to do the work of the taxpayer but instead fairly interpret the material before it and come to a reasonable conclusion rather than an arbitrary one
If any of these three tests are failed, then best judgement has not been employed. However, the onus is on the appellant to disprove the assessment.
There were further comments on the matter:
“There are…obligations placed on the Commissioners to properly come to a view on the amount of tax that was due to the best of their judgement. In particular:
- a value judgement must be made on the material put before them
- they must perform their function honestly
- there must be material on which to base their judgement
- but they should not be required to do the job of the taxpayer, or carry out extensive investigations
This means that the assessing inspector must fairly consider all material placed before them and, on that material, come to a decision that is reasonable and not arbitrary, taking into account the circumstances of the business. In some cases, some “guesswork” may be required, but it should be honestly made based on the information available and should not be spurious, but HMRC must be permitted a margin of discretion.
Experience insists that it is usually more successful if the quantum of a best judgement assessment is challenged.
Where a business successfully disputes the amount of an assessment and the assessment is reduced, it will rarely fail the best judgement test.
In the case of MH Rahman (Khayam Restaurant) CO 2329/97 the High Court recognised the practice whereby the tribunal adopts a two-step approach, looking initially at the question of best judgement and then at the amount of the assessment. The message of the High Court appeared to be that the Tribunal should concern itself more with the amount of an assessment rather than best judgement.
Arguments which may be employed to reduce a best judgement assessment are, inter alia:
- period of calculation is unrepresentative
- wastage
- discounts
- staff use
- theft
- seasonal trends
- competition
- sales
- opening hours
- client base, etc
HMRC’s guidance to its own officers states that: Any assessments made must satisfy the best judgement criteria. This means that given a set of conditions or circumstances, “you must take any necessary action and produce a result that is deemed to be reasonable and not arbitrary”.
In other words, best judgement is not the equivalent of the best result or the most favourable conclusion. It is a reasonable process by which an assessment is successfully reached.
In the case of CA McCourtie LON/92/191 the Tribunal considered the principles set out in Van Boeckel and put forward three further propositions:
- the facts should be objectively gathered and intelligently interpreted
- the calculations should be arithmetically sound, and
- any sampling technique should be representative
Tribunals will not treat an assessment as invalid merely because they disagree as to how the judgement should have been exercised. It is possible that a Tribunal may substitute its own judgement for HMRC’s in respect of the amount of the assessment. However, this does not necessarily mean that because a different quantum for the assessment was arrived at that the assessment failed the best judgement test.
Further, it is not the function of the Tribunal to engage in a process that looks afresh at the totality of the evidential material before it (M & A Georgiou t/a Mario’s Chippery, QB October 1995 [1995] STC 1101).
It should be also noted that even if one aspect of an assessment is found not to be made to best judgement this should not automatically invalidate the whole assessment – Pegasus Birds [2004] EWCA Civ1015.
Summary
There are significant difficulties in arguing that an inspector did not use best judgement and it is a high bar to get over.
In order to succeed on appeal, it would be required to be demonstrated, to the judge’s satisfaction, that the assessment was raised:
- dishonestly
- vindictively
- capriciously
- arbitrarily
- spuriously
- via an estimate or a guess in which all elements or best judgement are absent
- wholly unreasonably
and that this action applies to the assessment in its entirety.