Failure to notify liability for registration and belated notification: evidence to support liability arising by reference to anticipated future turnover
If you suspect that a trader should have been registered, you may be able to prove that the trader was required to notify his liability under what is known as the ‘30 day rule’. If there is a dispute, you will need to prove that, at some time in the past, there were reasonable grounds for believing that the value of the trader’s taxable turnover, in the period of 30 days then commencing, would exceed the annual registration threshold.
It is not sufficient to show that, in the event, the value of taxable turnover did not exceed the limit. Therefore, registration on the grounds of the, ‘30-day rule’, must be supported by the following type of evidence:
- short-term contracts
- orders for goods
and the like, which
- were in existence at the alleged date of the requirement to notify, and
- show that anticipated supplies were of a value in excess of the registration limit for the coming 30 days alone.