Definition of claim clarified in Vodafone, Bratt cases

The two Upper Tribunal decisions in Vodafone (UKUT0089) and Bratt Auto Services and Bratt Auto Contracts (UKUT0090) cast a similar, interesting light on the concept of a ‘claim’ of VAT. Bratt provides the less controversial outcome (perhaps) in deciding two points in favour of HMRC.

The first in the case of Vodafone was that a claim made for an indeterminate sum, but based on a principle, and a promise of figures later (implicitly, after the deadline for a valid claim), was not a ‘claim’. That is unsurprising and follows the First Tier Tribunal’s (FTT) decision.

The second in Bratt is closer to a winnable point. It relates to whether a claim that is quantified, but where the quantum is not attributed to tax periods, is deemed to be a ‘claim’. The FTT had held that it was a claim, since Regulation 37 of the VAT Regulations 1995 merely says that the claim must be quantified, not that it must be quantified per tax period.

H