188ÌåÓý

In Surreal Hair (MAN/1998/0554 VTD17215), we argued that the appellants were a single entity. They argued that were two separate entities of

• a partnership providing hairdressing services, and
• a sole proprietor providing hairdressing products and cards.

In reaching its decision, the Tribunal decided that there were several factors pointing towards there being one business. These included

• the lack of a commercial relationship between the two businesses
• the fact that there was a single bank account
• the fact that no cross-charge was made for use of the facilities.

In commenting on the appellants� view that there were two businesses, the Tribunal concluded that, although the appellants had intended to create two separate businesses, they had not done enough to create them. This is a useful observation to apply in similar cases.