Regulation 25A(6)(a) Value Added Tax Regulations 1995/2518 exempts from the obligation to file VAT returns on-line a practising member of a religious society or order whose beliefs are incompatible with the use of electronic communications. The company appealed against decisions of HMRC refusing its application to file its VAT returns on paper. It was represented by Mr Oxenham, its sole director and shareholder, who claimed exemption on grounds of religious belief, primarily because he was taking a stand against human behaviour inducing climate change and because he regarded internet usage as morally wrong for other reasons such as the risk of people becoming psychologically addicted to it, and the ease with which mass communications open up possibilities for socially reprehensible behaviour. HMRC had not been satisfied that he did not and would not use a computer, nor that he had demonstrated that he was a member of a religious society whose beliefs were incompatible with their use. Moreover, his precise religious affiliation seemed to be in some doubt.

Judge Mosedale concluded that the appellant company could not as such benefit from section 25A(6)(a): it could not have beliefs precisely because it was a company and, even if Mr Oxenham's beliefs were the beliefs to which the legislation referred, he was not a practising member of a religious society or order whose beliefs were incompatible with the use of electronic communications. However, a commercial company could have human rights to the extent that it was the alter ego of a person (or, potentially, of a group of people). In such circumstances, a company had to be seen as being in the shoes of that person and possessing the same human rights; otherwise, that person would be denied his or her human rights. A company which was the alter ego of a natural person could therefore be a victim of a breach of Article 9. On the facts, however, although Mr Oxenham had stated that his beliefs included a strong disinclination to use the internet, he did in fact use it to advertise his business and filed a number of other returns on-line via agents acting on his or his company's behalf. Requiring him to file yet another return on-line could not, therefore, hinder his manifestation of religious or other beliefs. The appeal was dismissed. [Frank Cranmer]