Wild v Revenue & Customs

A company may be a member of a partnership. Whether companies and individuals operated a single partnership business is generally a question of fact, assessed from the evidence of how the business was conducted rather than from the parties’ intentions or the companies’ separate legal personality. An appeal from a tribunal under Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, section 11, lies only on a point of law. Complaints about factual findings or matters not raised before the tribunal do not establish an error of law.

Mr and Mrs Wild appealed against a VAT and Duties Tribunal decision dated 19 February 2004. They had traded as a partnership and later established limited companies in connection with their piano-buying and selling business. The Commissioners concluded that the companies formed part of an overall partnership and issued assessments for under-declared VAT under section 73 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994.

The tribunal discharged some assessments as out of time and upheld the remainder, subject to reductions. The appeal concerned alleged procedural irregularity and the tribunal’s conclusion that the individuals and companies were trading in partnership.

1. The appeal was dismissed. Under section 11 of the Tribunals and Inquiries Act 1992, the High Court could intervene only if the tribunal had erred in law.

2. There was no procedural irregularity in permitting the claimant’s representative, rather than an accounting witness, to cross-examine the Commissioners’ witness. The representative had conducted the cross-examination, as is ordinary in contested proceedings.

3. The tribunal’s legal direction that a company could be a member of a partnership was correct. Separate legal personality did not prevent a company from participating in a partnership.

4. The tribunal was entitled to decide from the evidence whether the individuals and companies were carrying on a single partnership business. Relevant evidence included who made purchases, who allocated pianos to particular companies, and how receipts and bank accounts were used. The parties’ intention not to create a partnership was not determinative if the facts established one.

5. The matters relied on by Mr Wild were essentially factual matters. They had not been properly raised before the tribunal and did not demonstrate any error in its legal self-direction or decision-making process. The requirements for an appeal on a point of law were therefore not satisfied.

• High Court (Chancery Division): The appeal from the VAT and Duties Tribunal was dismissed.
• VAT and Duties Tribunal: On 19 February 2004, some assessments were discharged as out of time and the remaining assessments were upheld, in some cases with reductions.