One minute with Fabian Barth, VAT Manager at Alvarez & Marsal.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
At present, I deal with several requests for analysing complex technical issues, often at the interface between VAT and other legal fields. Businesses, in my perception, also have a growing appetite to minimise tax risks and achieve certainty through binding rulings, although in the UK they are of course quite difficult to obtain.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Question everything. Issues in tax law can be considered ‘trite’ for decades, until they suddenly are not. Especially early in one’s career, one tends to have a more open mind about those things and does not as easily accept something just because it has always been done a certain way. It is important to exploit that.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
To increase tax equality and make sure that smaller businesses in particular feel treated fairly by the state as a whole, I would lower the hurdles for taxpayers to have HMRC’s decisions reviewed by an independent judicial body, such as the First-tier Tribunal. For example, legislative intervention should make it clear beyond doubt that public law arguments may always be entertained in the tribunals, so that in cases where HMRC has provided an unambiguous assurance, taxpayers need not enforce it through costly judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. Equally problematic, from a rule of law perspective, is the fact that taxpayers may need to withdraw from proceedings in the higher courts even if they have a strong case, simply because they cannot bear the risk of having to pay costs if they lose. Here too, legislative intervention would be helpful.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
2025 has seen an unusually high number of VAT cases in the Supreme Court, although unfortunately the taxpayer has not been successful in any of them. Both Hotel La Tour [2025] UKSC 46 and Prudential [2025] UKSC 34 to some extent downplayed the role of CJEU case law. So, even though, in VAT, technically the European cases remain legally binding in the same manner as before, they appear no longer to be taken at face value. Cases built on domestic arguments or wider principles thus may be better placed to succeed than those strictly adhering to CJEU precedent.
And finally, you might not know this about me but...
I am a huge aviation nerd. I unfortunately no longer work in an office with a direct view of the approach to London City Airport, but if anyone ever feels the urge to discuss the latest developments in aviation, reach out!
One minute with Fabian Barth, VAT Manager at Alvarez & Marsal.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
At present, I deal with several requests for analysing complex technical issues, often at the interface between VAT and other legal fields. Businesses, in my perception, also have a growing appetite to minimise tax risks and achieve certainty through binding rulings, although in the UK they are of course quite difficult to obtain.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
Question everything. Issues in tax law can be considered ‘trite’ for decades, until they suddenly are not. Especially early in one’s career, one tends to have a more open mind about those things and does not as easily accept something just because it has always been done a certain way. It is important to exploit that.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
To increase tax equality and make sure that smaller businesses in particular feel treated fairly by the state as a whole, I would lower the hurdles for taxpayers to have HMRC’s decisions reviewed by an independent judicial body, such as the First-tier Tribunal. For example, legislative intervention should make it clear beyond doubt that public law arguments may always be entertained in the tribunals, so that in cases where HMRC has provided an unambiguous assurance, taxpayers need not enforce it through costly judicial review proceedings in the Administrative Court. Equally problematic, from a rule of law perspective, is the fact that taxpayers may need to withdraw from proceedings in the higher courts even if they have a strong case, simply because they cannot bear the risk of having to pay costs if they lose. Here too, legislative intervention would be helpful.
Has a recent tax case caught your eye?
2025 has seen an unusually high number of VAT cases in the Supreme Court, although unfortunately the taxpayer has not been successful in any of them. Both Hotel La Tour [2025] UKSC 46 and Prudential [2025] UKSC 34 to some extent downplayed the role of CJEU case law. So, even though, in VAT, technically the European cases remain legally binding in the same manner as before, they appear no longer to be taken at face value. Cases built on domestic arguments or wider principles thus may be better placed to succeed than those strictly adhering to CJEU precedent.
And finally, you might not know this about me but...
I am a huge aviation nerd. I unfortunately no longer work in an office with a direct view of the approach to London City Airport, but if anyone ever feels the urge to discuss the latest developments in aviation, reach out!
