Category: VAT

HMRC v Able Ltd: UTTC 25 Feb 2011

UTTC EXEMPTION – Transactions treated as exports – Supplies within UK to other NATO states – Ship dismantling services by UK yard to US department managing Reserve Fleet of obsolete vessels – Whether for the armed forces of another NATO state – Whether exempt under Art 151(1)(c) of Principal VAT Directive – Matter referred to ECJ.

Citations:

[2011] UKUT B5 (TCC), [2011] STI 635, [2011] BVC 1607

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 September 2022; Ref: scu.440802

Colaingrove Ltd v the Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 19 Feb 2004

The taxpayer licensed static caravans on seasonal pitches on its land. They claimed exemption from charging VAT on the basis that they were residential lettings exempt under European legislation.
Held: The appeal failed. The legislation exempted the purchase of static caravans, but explicilty not ‘the supply of accomodation in a caravan or houseboat.’ There was therefore no policy against a charge to VAT. A state was given discretion as to how any exemption was to be applied, but the test used in the UK legislation was of seasonality, and that in turn met the test of reasonableness.

Judges:

Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Thorpe Lord Justice Neuberger

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 146, Times 27-Feb-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC (OJ 1977 L145/1) 13B(b), Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch9 Grp1

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Colaingrove Limited v The Commissioners for Customs and Excise ChD 16-Apr-2003
The Directive exempted from a charge to VAT for letting of imoveable property. The taxpayer challenged the requirement to charge to VAT his business of leasing pitches for caravans.
Held: The directive allowed member states to derogate from . .
Cited – Skatteministeriet v Henriksen ECJ 13-Jul-1989
Europa Article 13B(b ) of the Sixth Directive ( 77/388 ) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be interpreted as meaning that the phrase ‘premises and sites for . .
Cited – Lubbock Fine v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 15-Dec-1993
Europa The term ‘letting of immovable property’ used in Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive (77/388) on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes to define a transaction . .
Cited – Amengual Far v Amengual Far ECJ 3-Feb-2000
Europa Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes allows Member States to lay down a general rule making lettings of immovable . .
Cited – Blasi v Finanzamt Munchen ECJ 12-Feb-1998
ECJ Article 13.B(b)(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes may be construed as meaning that the provision of short-term accommodation for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.193915

Inventive Tax Strategies Ltd (In Liquidation) and Others v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Supplier Receiving Payment): UTTC 22 Jul 2019

VAT – supplier receiving payment – subsequently coming subject to an unconditional obligation to repay – actual repayment not made – whether reduction in consideration for taxable supply – no – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 221 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 September 2022; Ref: scu.643785

Totel Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and Others: Admn 24 Mar 2011

The claimant sought to appeal against refusal of relief from payment of sums assessed by way of penalty, on the basis of hardship. HMRC argued that the right of appeal underthe 2007 Act had been taken away by the 1994 Act.

Judges:

Simon J

Citations:

[2012] QB 358, [2011] BVC 211, [2012] 2 WLR 435, [2011] EWHC 652 (Admin), [2011] STI 1210, [2011] STC 1485

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 84(3B), Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 11 13

Citing:

See Also – Totel Distribution Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 24-Feb-2005
VDT VAT – input tax – alleged carousel fraud – Commissioners unable to establish circulation of payment without tribunal inferring that certain payments had been made to particular party in chain of transactions . .
Appeal from – Totel Ltd v Revenue Customs VDT 19-May-2006
VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – suspected carousel or MTIC fraud – input tax repayment withheld pending ECJ judgment in Optigen and others – input tax paid with repayment supplement shortly after release of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430842

Bog (Taxation) C-502/09: ECJ 10 Mar 2011

ECJ Taxation – VAT – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Articles 5 and 6 – Classification of a commercial activity as a ‘supply of goods’ or a ‘supply of services’ – Supply of food or meals for immediate consumption from snack stalls or mobile snack bars – Supply in a cinema of popcorn and tortilla chips (nachos) for immediate consumption – Party catering service – Annex H, category 1 – Interpretation of the term ‘foodstuffs’.

Citations:

C-502/09, [2011] EUECJ C-502/09

Links:

Bailii

European, VAT

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430700

Finanzamt Burgdorf v Manfred Bog C-499/09: ECJ 10 Mar 2011

ECJ Taxation – VAT – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Articles 5 and 6 – Classification of a commercial activity as a ‘supply of goods’ or a ‘supply of services’ – Supply of food or meals for immediate consumption from snack stalls or mobile snack bars – Supply in a cinema of popcorn and tortilla chips (nachos) for immediate consumption – Party catering service – Annex H, category 1 – Interpretation of the term ‘foodstuffs’.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-499/09

Links:

Bailii

European, VAT

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430698

Bog (Taxation) C-501/09: ECJ 10 Mar 2011

ECJ Taxation – VAT – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Articles 5 and 6 – Classification of a commercial activity as a ‘supply of goods’ or a ‘supply of services’ – Supply of food or meals for immediate consumption from snack stalls or mobile snack bars – Supply in a cinema of popcorn and tortilla chips (nachos) for immediate consumption – Party catering service – Annex H, category 1 – Interpretation of the term ‘foodstuffs’.

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-501/09

Links:

Bailii

European, VAT

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430699

Finanzamt Burgdorf v Manfred Bog (Taxation) C-497/09: ECJ 10 Mar 2011

ECJ Taxation – VAT – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Articles 5 and 6 – Classification of a commercial activity as a ‘supply of goods’ or a ‘supply of services’ – Supply of food or meals for immediate consumption from snack stalls or mobile snack bars – Supply in a cinema of popcorn and tortilla chips (nachos) for immediate consumption – Party catering service – Annex H, category 1 – Interpretation of the term ‘foodstuffs’.

Judges:

K. Lenaerts, P

Citations:

[2011] EUECJ C-497/09, [2011] STC 1221, [2011] STI 745

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC 5 6

European, VAT

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.430697

South Herefordshire Golf Club v Revenue and Customs: VDT 13 Jul 2006

VAT – EXEMPT SUPPLIES – SPORTING SERVICES – The partnership ran a golf club which transferred the golfing services to two companies limited by guarantee – were the companies eligible bodies – no – they were not non-profit making bodies because they had the aim of making profit for the partnership – in the alternative they were under the commercial influence of Mr Lee, the senior partner of the partnership – the companies were liable to be compulsorily registered for VAT – Appeal dismissed.
VAT – ASSESSMENT – partnership assessed for VAT on standard rated supplies of staff to the companies – Appeal settled by consent.

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19653

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.243280

Diespecker (Grp) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 30 Jun 2006

VALUE ADDED TAX – Default Surcharge – Payment of VAT made late because of difficulties with internet banking – Held not a reasonable excuse for late payment – Issue of whether there was a pre-existing surcharge period as a condition of liability to the surcharge – This depended on whether the relative surcharge liability notice had been served on the Appellant within the meaning of section 59(3) VATA – Found as a fact that it had been so served – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19656

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.244152

Olympia Technology (No. 2) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 11 Jul 2006

REPAYMENT SUPPLEMENT – VAT credit – Claim arising from 25 transactions – Single amount claimed – Amount shown in return was excess of input tax over output tax relating to all transactions of that period – Respondents dealt with claim by pursuing seven inquiries into seven groups of those transactions – Respondents paid the input tax attributable to each group as and when each inquiry finished – Respondents withheld part of claim until well after end of relevant period – Whether failure to pay any part of amount claimed within relevant period results in Respondents incurring repayment supplement on the whole amount claimed for the period – No – Whether VAT credit is to be disintegrated into the separate transactions carried on during the period to which claim relates – No – Whether each inquiry into each group of transactions comprised in claim has its own relevant period – No – Appeal dismissed – VAT Act 1994 s.79

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19647

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 September 2022; Ref: scu.243278

Eynsham Cricket Club v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 1 Oct 2019

Vat – Whether Construction of Cricket Pavilion By Cricket Club Zero-Rated – whether cricket club a ‘charity’ for VAT purposes – whether pavilion had intended use as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community – whether EU law principles of equal treatment or fiscal neutrality apply.

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 286 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.643794

Leyton Sixth Form College v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Nov 2013

FTTTx VALUE ADDED TAX – construction of buildings – whether zero-rated or standard-rated supplies – whether construction of a building by a college was an enlargement of, or an extension to, an existing building, or the construction of an annexe to an existing building – whether, if an annexe, it was capable of functioning independently from the existing building, and whether there is one main access to annexe and existing building – construction was an extension to an existing building and therefore supplies standard-rated – appeal dismissed – VATA 1994, Schedule 8, Group 5, Item 2 and Notes 16 and 17

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 660 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.518618

Cumbria County Council v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Sep 2011

FTTTX VAT – output tax – local authority – authority required to supply services to DEFRA relating to foot and mouth outbreak – DEFRA refused to pay sums invoiced in full – whether claim for bad debt relief made within prescribed limit – no- claim for bad debt relief dismissed – whether authority entitled to reduce output tax under reg 38 VAT Regulations 1995 – on facts yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 621 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.449544

Westwood v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Jul 2011

FTTTx VAT Penalties – First and second surcharges imposed under S.59(C) TMA 1970 – Appellant unable to pay due to difficult trading conditions – says may have been able to pay had he known a surcharge would be imposed – whether reasonable excuse – no – surcharges confirmed.

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 496 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Taxes Manement Act 1970 59(C)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Taxes Management

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.449473

UK Storage Company (Sw) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Aug 2011

FTTTx VAT – Item 1 of Group 1, Sch 9 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – whether licence to occupy land an exempt supply or standard rated supply of storage facilities – whether storage units ‘immovable property’ – predominant purpose of supply

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 549 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.449525

AV Concepts Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Nov 2013

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Whether goods were sold for a combination of cash and the value of part-exchange items, or whether the part-exchange items were in substance the equivalent of a discount so that the goods should be treated as sold for the cash consideration alone – Appeal dismissed

Judges:

Nowlan TJ

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 646 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.518598

Haslen (T/A Racer Mx) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 Nov 2013

FTTTx VAT – s73 assessment for under-declared output tax – whether appellant’s supplies of motorcycles to its customers were made under the second hand margin scheme -motorcycles acquired from Danish and Dutch traders – eligibility condition that appellant received goods pursuant to a supply which was chargeable to VAT under the other Member State’s margin scheme rules not met – assessment upheld – s60 penalty for dishonest evasion – invoices from Danish and Dutch traders tampered with to include second hand margin scheme notations submitted by appellant to HMRC – penalty upheld – appeals dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 658 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 September 2022; Ref: scu.518613

Brennan v Revenue and Customs: VDT 14 Jul 2006

VAT ASSESSMENT: Appellant proprietor of a public house – reasonable grounds for suspecting under declaration of sales – gross takings below the norm for other public houses in the same area – assessment for unpaid VAT based on two weeks taking – Appellant deliberately failed to co-operate with the investigation by not responding to requests for additional information – Respondents considered fairly all material placed before them and came to a decision on that material which was reasonable and not arbitrary – the assessment was to best judgment and accurate – Appeal dismissed – costs order made against the Appellant.

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19657

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.244156

RS Couriers (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 19 Jul 2006

VAT – Requirement to give security – Para.4(2)(a), Sch. 11, VATA 1994 -whether requirement reasonable – whether quantum of security required reasonable – Held on the evidence that the requirement for security and quantum reasonable – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19665

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.244166

International Life Leisure Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 12 Jul 2006

VDT VAT – TOMS – tour operator – whether supplies of hotel and other holiday accommodation in France made by appellant under its booking conditions made as agent for accommodation suppliers or within ambit of TOMS as made to and then re-supplied by appellant as agent for undisclosed principal or as principal – held supplies made as agent for undisclosed principal or as principal – appeal dismissed
VAT – TOMS – if supplies made by Appellant as agent for hotel / accommodation providers are contracts with those suppliers of such accommodation consistent with agency status – in each case held that contracts not so consistent – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19649

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Cottage Holiday Associates Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners 1983
The taxpayer had been assessed to VAT on the supply of time share holiday cottages. The supply was of an eighty year lease to each tenant with the right to occupy for one week in each of the eighty years. The taxpayer argued that the supply . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.243276

Pang and Another (T/A Haxby Fortune Inn) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 28 Jun 2006

VAT – Chinese takeaway – assessment of tax on takings alleged suppressed following test eats, internal observations and external observations of appellants’ premises – held assessments to best judgment – appeal dismissed
VAT – civil evasive penalty – penalty instigated by 10 per cent for appellants co-operation in determination of the amount of tax penalty confirmed in mitigated amount – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19642

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.243265

College of Estate Management v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 11 Aug 2004

When offering courses to distance learning students, the College offered materials for the courses. As part of the course this supply would be exempt, as books, the supply would be zero-rated, but the taxpayer would be able to reclaim its VAT inputs.
Held: ‘There clearly was a separate supply of goods, namely the printed material from which the students were to prepare their assignments and study for their examinations. The writing, printing and distribution of the books formed a substantial part of the undertaking of the College both in terms of the demands it placed upon its staff as well as the actual proportion of the annual expenditure. The supply of those goods was clearly physically dissociable from the supply of the education service.’ and ‘the error in their [the lower courts’] approach was to treat this as a single either/or question answered by asking whether the supply of the written material was the means for better enjoying the education and by omitting to ask first whether or not the supply of the books was in itself sufficiently coherent, distinct and independent to constitute for the students an aim in itself.’

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Jacob The Right Honourable Sir Charles Mantell

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1086, Times 11-Oct-2004

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 4(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 25-Feb-1999
A company procuring insurance purchases for credit card protection was as exempt from VAT as was the insurer. A provision which restricted the ability to claim such exemption to those registered as insurers under national was invalid under European . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v British Telecommunications Plc HL 11-Feb-1999
The cost of the delivery of a quantity of new cars from the factory or depot to the purchaser is incidental and ancillary to the supply of the cars themselves, and the VAT on delivery charges was not reclaimable by the purchasing company as Input . .
Cited – Faaborg-Gelting Linien v Finanzamt Flensburg ECJ 2-May-1996
A non-takeaway restaurant is a supply of services, and a ferry supply was made from its place of business. The supply of prepared food and drink at a restaurant resulted from a whole series of services (including the preparation and service of the . .
Cited – Mirror Group plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Cantor Fitzgerald International v Same ECJ 9-Oct-2001
A potential lessee who did not have an interest in immovable property agreed to take a lease in return for money paid by the landlord. The transaction was not exempt from value-added tax under article 13(B)(b) as ‘the leasing or letting of immovable . .
Cited – British Railways Board v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 1977
The question of what is the supply, is, looking at all the circumstances objectively, what does the customer get, not why does he want it: ‘It cannot depend on the state of mind of any individual student by asking him or her: what did you pay the . .
Cited – Card Protection Plan Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 6-Feb-2001
The appellants sold a system protecting credit card holders against the consequences of loss or theft. They claimed that it was insurance and exempt from VAT. The commissioners said it was a service and vatable. The card provided a range of services . .
Cited – British United Provident Association Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; etc Admn 23-Jan-1997
In determining whether what would otherwise be two supplies should be regarded as a single supply the court has to ask itself whether one element is an ‘integral part’ of the other, or is ‘ancillary’ or ‘incidental’ to the other; or (in the . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Madgett and Baldwin (trading as Howden Court Hotel) ECJ 22-Oct-1998
The court considered the criteria for determining whether the provision to guests by a hotelier of travel services (and in particular transport to and from the hotel and excursions) constituted supply which was ancillary to the supply of . .
Appeal from – College of Estate Management v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 13-Nov-2003
The college appealed a finding that the supply of course manuals to its students was part of its exempt rather than zero-rated supply.
Held: ‘Once it is decided that there is a single supply from an economic view which should not be . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – College of Estate Management v Customs and Excise HL 20-Oct-2005
The college supplied educational services by distance learning. The commissioner sought to argue that printe daterials supplied with the course were ancillary and did not have the same exemption form VAT.
Held: The supplies did benefit from . .
Cited – College of Estate Management v Customs and Excise HL 20-Oct-2005
The college supplied educational services by distance learning. The commissioner sought to argue that printe daterials supplied with the course were ancillary and did not have the same exemption form VAT.
Held: The supplies did benefit from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Education, VAT

Updated: 02 September 2022; Ref: scu.200249

Grattan Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Jan 2011

VAT – agents’ commissions in respect of third party purchases paid in cash by mail order companies – whether directly applicable right under Second Directive to retrospective reduction in consideration for goods supplied between 1 April 1973 and 31 December 1977 – whether question to be referred to the ECJ
Remedy – whether directly effective EU right to compound interest – whether satisfied by payment in accordance with s 78 VATA – binding effect of John Wilkins – whether EU law requires the remedy to be available under VATA and enforceable in the Tribunal – whether questions to be referred to the ECJ – Littlewoods

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 31 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428225

Supreme Petfoods Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Jan 2011

VALUE ADDED TAX – Supplies of ferret food – whether zero-rated as supplies of animal feeding stuffs under general item 2 of Group 1, Schedule 8, VATA or standard-rated pursuant to excepted item (6) of that Group as being supplies of ‘pet foods’ – whether ferrets are pets – held that ferrets are a pet species notwithstanding that a minority of ferrets kept in the UK are working ferrets and not pets – held that the supplies were intended by the Appellant for feeding ferrets generally and were therefore supplies of pet food – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 19 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428226

Dom Buckley IRS Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Dec 2010

Value Added Tax – VAT Regulations 1995, Regulation 134 – Zero Rated Supply – whether conditions met of supply to a person in another member state – supply of car – identity of car disguised or missing – condition met. Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 5 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428208

HM Revenue and Customs v Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd: UTTC 8 Nov 2010

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:

Bailii

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

Maliha Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Dec 2010

VAT – input tax – disallowance – whether there had actually been any supply of services to which the relevant VAT invoices related – held in part no, and to that extent the input VAT should be disallowed – whether the remaining input VAT should be disallowed for failure to provide other evidence of the charge to input VAT subsequently required by HMRC under the proviso to Regulation 29(2) VAT Regulations 1995 – held the enquiries raised by HMRC did not amount to a ‘direction’ under that proviso but in any event no such direction could be made after the right to deduct had arisen – principle of legal certainty would be infringed – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 10 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428212

HMRC v Moorbury Limited: UTTC 23 Sep 2010

Redefinition of abusive transaction under Halifax principle – Taxpayer assessed to tax in respect of deductions wrongfully made in relation to the redefined transaction – Whether HMRC must subtract from the assessment the amounts of tax already paid – Whether HMRC may require the taxpayer to reclaim tax already paid as overpaid tax under s.80 VATA 1994

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 360 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428167

Mithras (Wine Bars): UTTC 5 Mar 2010

UTTC Value Added Tax – Assessment in default of proper returns by taxpayer – Function of First-tier Tribunal – Supervisory jurisdiction wrongly applied – Matter remitted to First-tier Tribunal to determine correct amounts of tax – VAT Act 1994 s.73(1)

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 115 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428150

Grimsby College Enterprises Ltd v HMRC: UTTC 7 May 2010

This is an appeal against part of the decision of Mr Colin Bishopp sitting as a judge of the First Tier Tribunal (Tax) released on 15th July 2009, in proceedings by way of two conjoined appeals against the disallowance of the recovery of input tax paid by Grimsby College Enterprises Limited (‘the Company’) in connection with the construction and equipping of a new engineering centre

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 141 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428156

Atec Associates Ltd v HMRC: UTTC 27 May 2010

UTTC Procedure – Transfer of functions of VAT Tribunal to First-tier Tribunal. Procedure – Discretion to apply 1986 Rules in place of 2009 Rules-whether to apply Rule 26(4) of 1986 Rules. Procedure – Application to set aside dismissal of VAT appeals after failure of prior application not attended by the applicant.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT 176 (TCC), [2010] STI 1755, [2010] STC 1882, [2010] BVC 1526

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Administrative

Updated: 01 September 2022; Ref: scu.428154

BPP Holdings v Revenue and Customs: CA 1 Mar 2016

HMRC had been debarred from further participation in the proceedings. BPP provided training courses, and the issue was as to the chargeability to VAT of books supplied between companies in the group. In the proceedings, HMRC repeatedly failed to meet deadlines and an order was made debarring them unless they complied. They did not. They then challenged their exclusion.

Judges:

Moore-Bisk VP CA LJ, Richards LJ, Ser Ernest Ryder SPT

Citations:

[2016] EWCA Civ 121, [2016] 3 All ER 245, [2016] BVC 9, [2016] STC 841, [2016] STI 516, [2016] WLR(D) 114, [2016] 1 WLR 1915

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTx – BPP University College of Professional Studies v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 1-Jul-2014
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred. . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v BPP Holdings Ltd and Others UTTC 3-Oct-2014
PROCEDURE – HMRC barred from further participation – FTT rule 8 – whether FTT applied correct principles – no – whether FTT’s decision outside reasonable exercise of judicial discretion – yes – decision set aside and remade – no barring order . .
Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .

Cited by:

At CA – BPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2017
The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Education

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.560443

BPP Holdings Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: SC 26 Jul 2017

The Revenue had challenged a decision by the FTTTx to bar it from defending an appeal as to VAT liability. It had failed first to meet procedural time limits and on the issue of an unless order had failed to comply. The Revenue challenged the ability of the FTTTx to debar it from defending.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed. The FTTTx faced a difficult binary choice, a draconian barring or allowing the Revenue to escape its failures: ‘I do not consider that it was on the wrong side of the line, given the combination of the nature and extent of HMRC’s failure to reply to BPP’s request, the length of the delay in rectifying the failure and the length of the consequential delay to the proceedings, the absence of any remedy to compensate BPP for the delay, and the absence of any explanation or excuse for the failure, coupled with the existence of other failures by HMRC to comply with directions.’

Judges:

Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Clarke, Lord Sumption, Lord Reed, Lord Hodge

Citations:

[2017] UKSC 55, [2017] 1 WLR 2945, [2017] STC 1655, [2017] BVC 36, [2017] 4 All ER 756, [2017] STI 1742, UKSC 2016/0069

Links:

Bailii, Bailii Summary, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 20170627 am video

Statutes:

Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal) (Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 8

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At FTTTx – BPP University College of Professional Studies v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 1-Jul-2014
FTTTx HMRC directed to provide further and better particulars – unless order breached – whether HMRC should be barred – whether Mitchell applies – HMRC barred. . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v BPP Holdings Ltd and Others UTTC 3-Oct-2014
PROCEDURE – HMRC barred from further participation – FTT rule 8 – whether FTT applied correct principles – no – whether FTT’s decision outside reasonable exercise of judicial discretion – yes – decision set aside and remade – no barring order . .
At CA – BPP Holdings v Revenue and Customs CA 1-Mar-2016
HMRC had been debarred from further participation in the proceedings. BPP provided training courses, and the issue was as to the chargeability to VAT of books supplied between companies in the group. In the proceedings, HMRC repeatedly failed to . .
Cited – Mitchell MP v News Group Newspapers Ltd CA 27-Nov-2013
(Practice Note) The claimant brought defamation proceedings against the defendant newspaper. His solicitors had failed to file his costs budget as required, and the claimant now appealed against an order under the new Rule 3.9, restricting very . .
Cited – Walbrook Trustee (Jersey) Ltd and others v Fattal and others CA 11-Mar-2008
Applications between consortium members as to management of apartment block.
Lawrence Collins LJ said: ‘ . . an appellate court should not interfere with case management decisions by a judge who has applied the correct principles and who has . .
Cited – Mucelli v Government of Albania (Criminal Appeal From Her Majesty’s High Court of Justice) HL 21-Jan-2009
The House was asked whether someone who wished to appeal against an extradition order had an obligation also to serve his appellant’s notice on the respondent within the seven days limit, and whether the period was capable of extension by the court. . .
Cited – Jones v First Tier Tribunal and Another SC 17-Apr-2013
The claimant had been injured when a lorry driver swerved to avoid hitting a man who stood in his path. He said that the deceased’s act of suicide amounted to an offence of violence under the 1861 Act so as to bring his own claim within the 2001 . .
Cited – Denton and Others v TH White Ltd and Others CA 4-Jul-2014
(De Laval Ltd, Part 20 defendant) (Practice Note) Several parties applied for relief from sanctions, having been refused at first instance:
Held: The court identified a three stage process. It should first calculate the seriousness and or . .
Cited – Thevarajah v Riordan and Others SC 16-Dec-2015
The defendants had failed to comply with an ‘unless’ order requiring disclosure, and had been first debarred from defending the cases as to liability. They applied to a second judge who granted relief from sanctions after new solicitors had complied . .
Cited – Hysaj v Secretary of State for The Home Department CA 16-Dec-2014
Applications for extensions of time to file an appeal should be taken the same as for applications for relief from sanctions, and should attract the same rigorous approach. There is no good reason to have a different approach for public law cases. . .
Cited – Prince Abdulaziz v Apex Global Management Ltd and Another SC 26-Nov-2014
The appellant was involved in very substantial litigation with the respondents. As a member of the Saudi Royal family he said that by convention he was not allowed to sign a witness statement, and appealed inter alia against orders requiring him to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Taxes Management, Litigation Practice

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.591174

Boguslaw Juliusz Dankowski v Dyrektor Izby Skarbowej w Lodzii (Taxation): ECJ 22 Dec 2010

ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Right to deduct input VAT – Services provided – Taxable person not registered for VAT – Details required on the VAT invoice – National tax legislation – Exclusion of right to deduct under Article 17(6) of the Sixth VAT Directive.

Citations:

C-438/09, [2010] EUECJ C-438/09

Links:

Bailii

European, VAT

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427690

Etat du Grand-Duche de Luxembourg, Administration de l’enregistrement et des domaines v Pierre Feltgen, in his capacity as administrator in the bankruptcy of Bacino Charter Company SA, Bacino Charter Company SA (Taxation): ECJ 22 Dec 2010

ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 15(4)(a) and 15(5) – Exemption for the hiring of sea-going vessels – Scope.

Citations:

C-116/10, [2010] EUECJ C-116/10

Links:

Bailii

European, VAT

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.427696

Greener Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 26 Aug 2010

FTTTx INPUT TAX – MTIC fraud – whether agent’s knowledge attributed to company – no – whether company should have known of connection to fraud – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 412 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – HMRC v Greener Solutions UTTC 18-Jan-2012
UTCC INPUT TAX – MTIC fraud – whether agent’s knowledge attributed to company – yes-appeal allowed
Greener Solutions sought repayment of the input tax incurred in respect of mobile telephones it had bought . .
Cited – Bilta (UK) Ltd and Others v Nazir and Others ChD 30-Jul-2012
The company was said to have engaged in a fraud based on false European Trading Scheme Allowances, and had been wound up by the Revenue. The liquidators, in the company name, now sought recovery from former directors and associates.
Held: The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.426552

Muster Inns Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Jun 2014

FTTTx VAT – ss8 and 9 VATA – reverse charge- whether presence in the UK was a fixed establishment from which supplies were made
VAT – assessment – best judgement
VAT – input tax – whether invoice specifying VAT was enough to permit input tax deduction if supplier was not chargeable to VAT.

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 563 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.526938

Norseman Gold Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jun 2014

FTTTx VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – whether appellant carrying on economic activity – whether expenses attributable to onward taxable supply – UK resident company providing management services to overseas subsidiaries – no agreement on amount of consideration to be paid by subsidiaries – no – whether taxable supplies made – no – whether assessments in time – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 573 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.526941

Thameside Electrical Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Jun 2014

FTTTx Value Added Tax – late payment – cash flow problems – previously in a late payment agreement – no application for late payment agreement – overdraft facility just sufficient to pay – unwilling to approach overdraft limit – no reasonable excuse

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 605 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.526953

Morfee v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Jun 2014

FTTTx VAT – Strike out application – VAT treatment of supplies made to Appellant for works on listed building – VAT contested by Appellant not supplier- whether HMRC gave decision to Appellant against which appeal lies – HELD – Appellant’s claim struck out on basis that no appealable decision – subject to Directions to make full statement of case to HMRC with request for decision against which appeal could be made.

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 642 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.533704

LM Communications Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 11 Jun 2014

FTTTx VAT default surcharge – VATA 1994 s71(1)(b) – inadvertent transfer of funds out of, instead of into, Appellant’s bank account by director caused a shortfall and a default – whether reasonable excuse – no – whether penalty disproportionate – no appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 596 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.526931

Raj Cuisine (Kells) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Jun 2014

FTTTx VAT AND INCOME TAX – Suppression of takings and who was responsible – was assessment raised to best judgment – yes – was the quantum correct – no – alternative calculation by the tribunal – appeal allowed in part
PENALTY – Section 60 and 61 VAT Act 1994 – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 545 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Income Tax

Updated: 31 August 2022; Ref: scu.526947

Able UK Ltd v The Commissioners for Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Nov 2009

VAT – EXEMPTION – Appellant made supplies of dismantling services to US Navy – whether the exemption under Article 151(1)(c) of the VAT Directive applied only to visiting NATO forces stationed in the UK – no – was the Appellant’s services exempt – yes – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 323 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 August 2022; Ref: scu.409093