UTTC INPUT TAX – tripartite agreement entered into by the Respondent, a number of financial institutions and PricewaterhouseCoopers whose fee was to be paid for by the Respondent-whether input tax of the Respondent – no -appeal allowed.
The Upper Tribunal allowed the Commissioners’ appeal, holding that the Contract was one ‘in which the Engaging Institutions contracted with PwC to supply services which they needed for the purposes of their own businesses, and Airtours contracted with PwC to pay its fees, rather than one in which Airtours received something of value from PwC to be used for the purpose of its business in return for its payment’
Citations:
[2010] UKUT 404 (TCC), [2011] STC 239, [2010] STI 3248, [2010] BVC 1587
Links:
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Airtours Holiday Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 2-Oct-2009
VAT – deduction of input tax – did the paying party receive a supply – yes – appeal allowed.
All that was required to establish its case was that it had ‘obtained anything at all that was used for the purpose of his business’ and ‘a supply of a . .
Cited by:
At UTTC – Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 24-Jul-2014
The Court was asked whether Airtours was entitled to recover (as input tax) value added tax charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of certain services provided by PwC and for which the appellant paid. The issue turned upon whether, for VAT . .
At UTTC – Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The court was asked whether the appellant, Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd (formerly MyTravel Group plc), was entitled to recover, by way of input tax VAT charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of services provided by PwC and paid for by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
VAT
Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428174