One minute with James Hurst is a Director and Head of VAT Disputes and Litigation at Johnston Carmichael.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
I’m currently involved in a VAT appeal centred on a Reemtsma claim. HMRC argues that Brexit has closed the door on these claims. The dispute turns on some intricate questions of jurisdiction and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Watch this space.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
The critical importance of getting things right in the First-tier Tribunal. Early in my disputes career, there was a tendency to view the FTT as simply the first step – with comfort taken from the possibility of appeal to the Upper Tribunal and beyond.
What experience has taught me is that many appeals are ultimately constrained by findings of fact. Once the FTT has made evaluative judgments about evidence, those conclusions can be extremely difficult to disturb. A technically strong argument may offer little protection if the factual groundwork is weak.
Understanding this fundamentally changes how you approach disputes. Preparation becomes everything. Evidential strategy, witness credibility, and contemporaneous documentation often matter as much as technical analysis. The disputes that succeed are rarely won on clever points alone, but on careful framing, disciplined thinking and robust evidence.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I would redraft the law to make clear that taxpayers may advance public law arguments, such as legitimate expectation, before the tax tribunal. It should not be a guessing exercise to determine the correct forum for such a challenge.
In practice, judicial review in the High Court is simply not a realistic route for many taxpayers, given the costs and procedural hurdles involved. The current uncertainty over the tribunal’s jurisdiction often results in satellite litigation, additional expense, and avoidable delay.
A clear statutory footing would reduce unnecessary disputes about where arguments may be heard, improve access to justice, and allow the tribunal to scrutinise HMRC’s decision-making more effectively.
What’s topical in your world?
VAT continues to generate lively debate. Current themes include VAT on private schools, the boundary between medical care and cosmetic treatment and, inevitably, whether certain flapjacks qualify as ‘cakes’.
The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Illuminate Skin Clinics [2025] UKUT 341 (TCC) provided helpful clarification on the distinction between exempt medical care and standard-rated cosmetic treatments. At the same time, HMRC appear to have intensified compliance activity in this sector, with some businesses facing retrospective registrations, assessments, penalties, and interest.
HMRC have also intensified scrutiny of food manufacturers and retailers, particularly those supplying flapjacks and similar products. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Innovative Bites [2025] EWCA Civ 293, the boundaries of ‘confectionery’ have expanded yet again. HMRC’s decision to challenge multiple points in the supply chain at once risks generating uncertainty, commercial friction, and potentially divergent VAT outcomes for identical products.
You might not know this about me but...
Away from VAT disputes, you’ll usually find me on a badminton court. I’ve played in the top division of the Leicestershire league, and it remains my most reliable method of stress management and is considerably cheaper than therapy.
One minute with James Hurst is a Director and Head of VAT Disputes and Litigation at Johnston Carmichael.
What’s keeping you busy at work?
I’m currently involved in a VAT appeal centred on a Reemtsma claim. HMRC argues that Brexit has closed the door on these claims. The dispute turns on some intricate questions of jurisdiction and the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018. Watch this space.
What do you know now that you wish you’d known at the start of your career?
The critical importance of getting things right in the First-tier Tribunal. Early in my disputes career, there was a tendency to view the FTT as simply the first step – with comfort taken from the possibility of appeal to the Upper Tribunal and beyond.
What experience has taught me is that many appeals are ultimately constrained by findings of fact. Once the FTT has made evaluative judgments about evidence, those conclusions can be extremely difficult to disturb. A technically strong argument may offer little protection if the factual groundwork is weak.
Understanding this fundamentally changes how you approach disputes. Preparation becomes everything. Evidential strategy, witness credibility, and contemporaneous documentation often matter as much as technical analysis. The disputes that succeed are rarely won on clever points alone, but on careful framing, disciplined thinking and robust evidence.
If you could make one change to tax, what would it be?
I would redraft the law to make clear that taxpayers may advance public law arguments, such as legitimate expectation, before the tax tribunal. It should not be a guessing exercise to determine the correct forum for such a challenge.
In practice, judicial review in the High Court is simply not a realistic route for many taxpayers, given the costs and procedural hurdles involved. The current uncertainty over the tribunal’s jurisdiction often results in satellite litigation, additional expense, and avoidable delay.
A clear statutory footing would reduce unnecessary disputes about where arguments may be heard, improve access to justice, and allow the tribunal to scrutinise HMRC’s decision-making more effectively.
What’s topical in your world?
VAT continues to generate lively debate. Current themes include VAT on private schools, the boundary between medical care and cosmetic treatment and, inevitably, whether certain flapjacks qualify as ‘cakes’.
The Upper Tribunal’s decision in Illuminate Skin Clinics [2025] UKUT 341 (TCC) provided helpful clarification on the distinction between exempt medical care and standard-rated cosmetic treatments. At the same time, HMRC appear to have intensified compliance activity in this sector, with some businesses facing retrospective registrations, assessments, penalties, and interest.
HMRC have also intensified scrutiny of food manufacturers and retailers, particularly those supplying flapjacks and similar products. Following the Court of Appeal’s decision in Innovative Bites [2025] EWCA Civ 293, the boundaries of ‘confectionery’ have expanded yet again. HMRC’s decision to challenge multiple points in the supply chain at once risks generating uncertainty, commercial friction, and potentially divergent VAT outcomes for identical products.
You might not know this about me but...
Away from VAT disputes, you’ll usually find me on a badminton court. I’ve played in the top division of the Leicestershire league, and it remains my most reliable method of stress management and is considerably cheaper than therapy.
.tmb-editorspic.jpeg?sfvrsn=7981419_1)
