The recent case of Elbrook (Cash & Carry) Ltd here brings into focus the concept of “hardship”.  In this case Elbrook successfully appealed to the Upper Tribunal (UT) against HMRC decision that the appellant should seek additional finance to pay the VAT said to be due rather than allow the case to be heard without that payment on the grounds of hardship.

So what is the process and what is “hardship”?

Background

If a taxpayer wishes to appeal to the Tribunal against a decision made by HMRC he must pay any disputed VAT before the case can be heard. The reason for this is understandable, without this rule taxpayers could make an appeal merely to delay the payment of tax and it is a difficult test to satisfy. However, if the applicant is able to demonstrate that payment of the VAT would cause financial hardship the rule may be waived  by HMRC. This decision is an appealable matter. (NB: There is no requirement to pay interest or penalties before appealing but interest will continue to accumulate on an assessment).  If a business believes that paying the amount it wishes to appeal against would cause it hardship it can ask HMRC not to collect the payment due until the appeal has been considered by the tribunal. It will need to:

• write to the officer who made the original decision
• explain how paying this amount before the appeal hearing would cause the business hardship

Depending on the size of the business, the explanation should include detailed evidence of its financial position and the impact of paying the disputed tax. I have seen many applications fail as a result of incomplete evidence, or general statements that are not evidenced by documentation.  It pays to put a comprehensive application together and have this reviewed by an adviser before it is submitted.

HMRC will write and tell you whether or not they agree with delaying the payment. If they do not, the business can go to Tribunal

The law

The rules where applicable are set out in the VAT Act 1994, section 84(3)

 “Where the appeal is against a decision… it shall not be entertained unless—

 “(a) the amount which the Commissioners have determined to be payable as VAT has been paid or deposited; or

 (b) on being satisfied that the appellant would otherwise suffer hardship the Commissioners agree or the tribunal decides that it should be entertained notwithstanding that that amount has not been so paid or deposited.”

Section 84(3) is intended to strike a balance between, on the one hand, the desire to prevent abuse of the appeal mechanism by employing it to delay payment of the disputed tax, and on the other to provide relief from the stricture of an appellant having to pay or deposit the disputed sum as the price for entering the appeal process, where to do so would cause hardship.

 Hardship

Unhelpfully, this term is not defined in the legislation, nor in HMRC guidance. Consequently, we must look at case law.  The following comments in the “original” Elbrook case – (2016) UKFTT 0191 (citing various previous cases, mainly “ToTel 1 and 2”) assist in understanding a hardship appeal:

• Decisions on hardship should not stifle meritorious appeals
• The test is one of capacity to pay without financial hardship, not just capacity to pay
• The time at which the question is to be asked is the time of the hearing. This may be qualified if the appellant has put themselves in a current position of hardship deliberately (eg; by extraction of funds otherwise readily available from a company by way of dividend), or if there is significant delay on the part of the appellant
• The question should be capable of decision promptly from readily available material
• The enquiry should be directed to the ability of an appellant to pay from resources which are immediately or readily available (a business is not expected to seek funding outside its normal sources, nor sell assets)
• The test is all or nothing. The ability to pay part of the VAT without hardship does not matter
• If the Tribunal has fixed a cut off point for the admission of material, it is not an error of law for the Tribunal to ignore any later furnished evidence
• The absence of contemporaneous accounting information is a justification for the Tribunal to conclude that it can place little if any weight on the appellant’s assertion that it is unable to afford to pay

The onus of proof in such cases is on the taxpayer to demonstrate hardship and without persuasive evidence such applications are unlikely to succeed.

Action

If your business, or your client’s business is the subject of a disputed decision, it should review its financial position and consider appealing against the decision even if paying the disputed amount would cause hardship.  A business should not be put off appealing just because it would suffer hardship. We are able to assist in any review required.