Joanna Vicary

Tax & Duties

Joanna has a substantial tax practice covering all areas of the UK, including Northern Ireland. She specialises in both direct and indirect tax litigation where her clients include HM Revenue and Customs, companies and individuals.

Consistently recognised as a leading junior in her field by both Legal 500 and Chambers and Partners, where she is recommended as being ‘immensely bright’ and ‘very charismatic’. A ‘highly intelligent, tenacious and responsive advocate,’ ‘her knowledge of the law and tactical awareness is superb.’ She is ‘charming with Judges but does not duck the difficult legal arguments.’

Appointed to the Attorney General’s ‘A’ Panel of Counsel (regional).

EXAMPLES OF RECENT WORK

VAT

Greenspace (UK) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] EWCA Civ 106 – appeal against an assessment to VAT of £2.5 million; determination of whether the supply made by the Appellant was ‘insulation…for roofs’ within the meaning of Note 1(a), Group 2, Schedule 7A of VATA.

E-Zec Medical Transport Services Ltd & Others v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 302 (TC) – appeal by a number of providers of ambulance services. The appeal concerned whether the supplies were zero-rated for the purposes of VAT under Item 4(a), Group 8, Schedule 8 VATA 1994, as interpreted in accordance with Note 4D

Scanwell Logistics (UK) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC  [2021] UKFTT 261 (TC) – appeal against an assessment to import VAT in the form of a C18 Post Clearance Demand Note for £5.7 million and associated decision that the appellant’s declared entries did not qualify for Onward Supply Relief.

All Answers Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2020] UKUT 236 (TCC) – appeal against an assessment to VAT of circa £1 million; and determination of whether the appellant was an agent or principal to the contracts pursuant to which ‘model essays’ and other academic works were supplied.

Window to the Womb (Franchise) Ltd & Ors v The Commissioners for HMRC [2020] UKFTT 00201 (TC) – whether the principal purpose of a supply of obstetric ultrasound scanning was the provision of medical care or simply ‘baby bonding’ and souvenir imagery; and whether there was a single composite supply thereby enabling all packages sold to fall within the VAT exemption.

The Core (Swindon) Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2020] UKUT 301 (TCC)  – classification of ‘juice cleanse’ programmes: whether standard rated as beverages or zero-rated as food.

Marlow Rowing Club v The Commissioners for HMRC [2020] UKUT 0020 (TCC) – whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for incorrectly filing a zero-rating certificate relating to the rebuilding of a clubhouse.

ULookUBook Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2020] UKFTT 000 (TC) – whether Card Payment Fees paid in relation to services comprising payments or transfers of money are exempt pursuant to Article 135(1)(d) of Directive 2006/112.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Jigsaw Medical Services Ltd [2018] UKUT 222(TCC) – whether a supply of emergency ambulance services was zero-rated for the purposes of VAT. Led by Eleni Mitrophanous KC.

Cavendish Green Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKUT 66 (TCC) – whether a building was properly zero-rated or exempt for the purposes of VAT; and the circumstances in which new factual evidence can be introduced to the Upper Tribunal.

Kinnerton Confectionery Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKFTT 0382 (TC) – classification of an allergen free chocolate bar: whether standard rated as confectionery or zero-rated as food.

Brabners LLP v The Commissioners for HMRC [2017] UKFTT 666 (TC) – whether property searches carried out by solicitors during the Conveyancing process are to be treated as disbursements.

Duties

Ocean Choice International Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2023] UKFTT 289 (TC) – appeal against C18 Post Clearance Demand Note in relation to imports of prawn and shrimp. Appeal concerned end-use relief and issues of remission under the UCC.

 Laurence Supply (Leather Goods) Ltd v HMRC [2024] UKFTT 124 (TCC) –  appeal against C18 Post Clearance Demand Note in relation to imports of fashion handbags.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Logfret (UK) Limited [2020] EWCA Civ 569 – significant case relating to Directive 2008/118 on excise duty, focusing on the duration of duty-suspended movements of goods, the detection of irregularities in such movements, and the evidential requirements for demonstrating the end of a movement. Led by Jessica Simor KC.

Morgan James Ltd & Exeter Drinks Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2020] UKFTT 00151 (TC) – appeal against the decision of HMRC to refuse to approve the appellants’ applications to be approved to trade in the wholesale of alcohol under the Alcohol Wholesaler Registration Scheme.

The Commissioners for HMRC v Woodstream Europe Ltd [2018] UKUT 0398 (TCC) – the first reported case in the UK concerning the excise duty provisions relating to denatured alcohol. Further considers the jurisdiction of the F-tT on a strike out application, and when a person will have standing to issue an appeal.

Murray v The Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKFTT 622 (TC) – strike out application further considering arguments relating to ‘consumption and proportionality’ following the earlier decision in Staniszewski.

Jemmett v The Commissioners for HMRC [2018] UKFTT 677 (TC) – excise duty assessment and wrong-doing penalty imposed following fuel audit of haulage fleet.

Europackaging UK Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2017] UKFTT 160 (TC) – classification of Tesco ‘blue ladybird’ plastic bags. Issues of remission under the Community Customs Code.

Direct Taxation

FA v The Commissioners for HMRC (2022) – lead Counsel for HMRC in an appeal against a series of income tax assessments and penalties totalling circa £10 million.

Dr Peter Wilson v The Commissioners for HMRC  [2021] UKUT 0239 (TCC) on the question of whether the appellant was an employee or member of an LLP; concerns a proper construction of s.863 of the Income Tax (Trading and Other Income) Act 2005 and its interaction with s.4(4) of the Limited Liability Partnerships Act 2000.

GK v The Commissioners for HMRC (2021) – appeal against a series of Discovery Assessments. Appeal relates to question of whether appellant was an employee or a member of an LLP.

J Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC (2021) – Off-payroll working (IR35) dispute involving a BBC radio presenter.

VAT Fraud

Northside Fleet Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKUT 256 (TCC) – Upper Tribunal considered whether the First Tier Tribunal had followed the correct approach when denying input tax under Kittel principles; and also the circumstances in which a decision may be said to be perverse.

Lynton Exports (Alsager) Limited v The Commissioners for HMRC [2022] UKFTT 224 (TC) – Kittel and Mecsek assessments totalling in excess of £10 million.

Revive Corporation Ltd v The Commissioners for HMRC [2020] UKUT 320 (TCC) – £1 million MTIC fraud relating to computer gaming products. Included the use of contra-trader schemes. Upper Tribunal decision focuses on the extent of reasoning to be provided by the First Tier Tribunal when considering whether the only possible explanation for the transactions was that they were connected to fraud.

Appointments

Attorney General’s ‘A’ Panel (2018)

Attorney General’s Panel of Junior Counsel (2007)

Associations

Revenue Bar Association

VAT Practitioners Group

Chancery Bar Association

Education

BA Jurisprudence, Oxford (First Class)

MA (Oxon)

Prescribed Information

Joanna Vicary is a practising barrister, who is regulated by the Bar Standards Board. Details of information held by the BSB about Joanna Vicary can be found here.

Joanna Vicary’s clerks will happily provide no obligation quotations for all legal services that she provides. Their contact details can be found here. It is most common for Joanna Vicary to undertake Court and Tribunal work for a brief fee plus additional daily refresher fees. Advisory work is usually charged at an hourly rate, although fixed fees are available. Joanna Vicary will typically return paperwork within 10 days, however professional commitments, complexity and volume of documentation can affect these approximate timescales.