Category: VAT

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Westmorland Motorway: Admn 21 Feb 1997

Judges:

Lightman J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 171, [1997] STC 400

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1983

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Westmorland Motorway Services Ltd CA 5-Feb-1998
Westmorland ran motorway service stations. Its practice, known to coach drivers, was to provide, without payment, a packet of cigarettes and a self-service meal (chosen from its usual menu) to any coach driver who brought a coach with at least . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.137116

Mapcargo Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Mar 2013

FTTTx CUSTOMS DUTY – Outward Processing Relief – Re-imported goods after repair – wrong information on documents – no relief
VALUE ADDED TAX – whether VAT chargeable on re-import after repair – yes – wrong information on documents – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2013] UKFTT 217 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Customs and Excise

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.472792

Lakeside Collector Cards v The Commissioners Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 Sep 2012

VALUE ADDED TAX – Input tax – Change from cash accounting – Return submitted 2.5 years late – Capping provisions – Whether input tax capped as from time return due or from time received by Respondents – Status of Respondents’ manual published on Internet considered

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 563 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.466169

Vision Express (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 14 Nov 2008

VALUE ADDED TAX … partial exemption – retail opticians using floor-space based special method – override notice served – whether notice properly served – whether PESM achieved fair result – no – whether override notice sufficiently precise -VAT Regulations 1995, regs 99, 101, 102. 102A, 102B – override notice properly served and valid – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20870

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.301868

Procter and Gamble UK v Revenue and Customs (Including Supplemental Judgment): ChD 4 Jul 2008

Whether Regular Pringles are standard-rated as being within the words ‘potato crisps, potato sticks, potato puffs and similar products made from the potato, or from potato flour, or from potato starch’ in excepted item 5 of Group 1 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994.
Held: They were not potato products and were zero-rated for VAT.

Judges:

Warren J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 1558 (Ch), Times 18-Jul-2008

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Procter and Gamble (Uk) v Revenue and Customs VDT 25-Jun-2007
VDT ZERO-RATING – food – Excepted item 5 of Group 1 of Schedule 8 to the VAT Act 1994 – whether Pringles are similar to potato crisps – yes – whether they are made from the potato, potato flour or potato starch – . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Revenue and Customs v Procter and Gamble UK CA 20-May-2009
The court was asked whether Pringles are ‘similar to potato crisps and made from the potato?’ Toulson LJ discussed the need for appellate courts to respect the special knowledge of tribunals: ‘Where a Tribunal has taken into account all relevant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 17 July 2022; Ref: scu.270632

Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise: CA 14 Dec 1999

The taxpayer discovered that it had over several years made overpayments of VAT on chocolate covered biscuits because of a mistake as to the tax mutual with the defendants.
Held: MandS’s challenge to section 80(4) (as infringing EU law) failed, as regards the teacakes claim, because the Becker conditions were not satisfied (Becker v Finanzamt Munster-Innenstadt (Case 8/81) [1982] ECR 53) and general principles of Community law could not be relied on in the absence of a directly enforceable right;
(2) MandS’s challenge to section 80 (4) failed, as regards the late vouchers claim, for similar reasons, since the Commissioners’ failure to apply the amended statute correctly was not equivalent to incorrect transposition; and
(3) MandS’s challenge to section 80 (4), as regards the early vouchers, should be referred to the Court of Justice. Schiemann LJ (with whom the other members of the Court agreed) stated ([2000] STC 16, 39): ‘Marks and Spencer have an alternative submission which I shall consider in the next part of this judgment to the effect that the retrospective legislation is unlawfully discriminatory. I am not, for reasons which I shall shortly explain, persuaded that Marks and Spencer are entitled to judgment on that basis. It follows that a decision on whether it is compatible with Community law to enforce legislation which removes with retrospective effect a right under national law to reclaim VAT, which right has existed unexercised for more than three years, is in my judgment necessary to enable this Court to give judgment on the early vouchers claim. I would therefore be minded to refer this question to the Court of Justice.’

Citations:

[1999] EWCA Civ 3024, [2000] BTC 5003, [2000] 1 CMLR 256, [2000] Eu LR 293, [2000] STC 16, [2000] STI 22, [2000] BVC 35

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Taxes Act 1994 80(4)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Admn 21-Dec-1998
The limitation period for the recovery of overpaid VAT was alleged to offend the principle of equivalence.
Held: Moses J said: ‘In my judgment no comparison can be made with other types of tax such as income tax payable in respect of an . .

Cited by:

At CA – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 4-Feb-2009
The taxpayer requested refund of VAT overpaid on chocolate covered cakes. The CandE resisted saying that the money had been substantially already paid by its customers. The case had been referred twice to the ECJ, who answered that the maintenance . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, VAT

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.268843

Holding and Holding v Revenue Customs: VDT 19 May 2006

Item 1(d) Group 1 Schedule 9 VATA 1994 – Article 13B(b)(1) of the Sixth Directive – whether accommodation was provided in a hotel inn or boarding house in the hotel sector or in a similar establishment or a sector with a similar function – appeal against cancellation of VAT registration on grounds that accommodation provided to lodgers did not fall within Item 1(d)

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19573

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.242778

Halsall Riding and Livery Centre v Revenue and Customs: VDT 17 Nov 2005

VALUE ADDED TAX – livery and stabling – tax charged and accounted for from 1988 to 1996 – later acceptance that supplies exempt – claim for recovery of overpaid output tax – VATA 1994 s 80(1) – claim made more than three years after end of last relevant accounting period – VATA s 80(4) – reduction of time limit for making claim – whether absence of transitional period for making claims a material factor – tribunal satisfied no claim would have been made if transitional period correctly implemented – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19342

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.238042

Lifestyles Healthcare (Europe) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 20 Oct 2005

VALUE ADDED TAX – Exemption for health and welfare supplies – Group 7, item 1(a) and Note (2), Schedule 9, VATA – Appellant arranges for a diagnostic test to be carried out by a laboratory for the patient who is the Appellant’s customer – the diagnostic test supplied by the laboratory to the Appellant as an exempt supply – the Appellant makes an onward supply to the patient at a marked up price – whether that supply is exempt on the basis that the laboratory’s supply is exempt – held the Appellant’s supply is a supply of a different nature from the laboratory’s supply and is not exempt because the services supplied by the Appellant are not wholly performed or directly supervised by a registered medical practitioner – Gregg and another v Commissioners of C and E considered – held the principle of tax neutrality does not compel a different conclusion – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19300

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.238010

Church of England Children’s Society v Revenue and Customs: ChD 29 Jul 2005

The Society sent out free newsletters to its unpaid fund-raisers and supporters. They sought to deduct input tax charged to them from the supplies associated with the costs.
Held: The Society might be able to deduct such tax as residual input tax. The charity did carry on a business and made taxable supplies. The matter would be remitted for consieration of further factual issues. ‘I see nothing odd in treating as a supply, to its fullest extent, a disposal of goods, made otherwise than for a consideration, even where the original input tax has been restricted. It will only have been restricted because it has not been possible to attribute the input costs to an output transaction. But once an output transaction is identified, as paragraph 5(1) of Schedule 4 requires in the circumstances set out in that provision, it is merely a question of identifying the input costs relating to the deemed supply and all else follows’.

Judges:

Blackburne J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1692 (Ch), Times 21-Sep-2005, [2005] STC 1644

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Church of England Children’s Society v Customs and Excise VDT 8-Jun-2004
. .
Cited – Kretztechnik AG v Finanzamt Linz ECJ 26-May-2005
Europa Sixth VAT Directive – Supplies for consideration – Share issue – Admission of a company to a stock exchange – Deductibility of VAT).
Kretztechnik’s objects were the development and sale of . .
Cited – Customs and Excise Commissioners v West Herts College ChD 2001
West Herts College produced, printed and distributed prospectuses detailing its courses and facilities. The prospectuses were issued free to students and others. The expenditure producing the prospectuses had been treated by the Commissioners as . .
Cited – Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 27-Apr-1999
‘Items’ described as gifts’ which Kuwait Petroleum exchanged under a petrol promotion scheme for vouchers received by customers purchasing petrol were issued ‘free of charge’. The purchase of petrol and the exchange of vouchers for gifts were . .
Cited – BLP Group v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 6-Apr-1995
The use of taxable goods for an exempt transaction disallowed a claim against VAT input tax. The use in that provision of the words ‘for transactions’ shows that to give the right to deduct under paragraph 2, the goods or services in question must . .

Cited by:

Cited – Oxfam v Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Nov-2009
The charity appealed against refusal to allow it to reclaim input VAT. It also sought judicial review of the decision of the Tribunal not to allow it to raise an argument of legitimate expectation. The charity had various subsidiaries conducting . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Charity

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.229270

Fosberry and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 28 Jul 2005

COSTS – Indemnity basis – Commissioners accepted that taxpayers’ appeal succeeded – Commissioners offered to pay taxpayers’ costs – Taxpayers applied for indemnity costs on grounds that Commissioners had changed their reasons for original decision after appeal had been lodged – Whether conduct of Commissioners so unreasonable as to warrant award of costs on indemnity basis – No – Application dismissed
COSTS – Parliamentary Answer – Successful Appellants applied unsuccessfully for indemnity costs – Commissioners sought award of their costs incurred in resisting the Appellants’ costs application – Appellants relied on Parliamentary Answer – Whether Tribunal precluded from awarding costs to the Commissioners – No – Commissioners’ application allowed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19189

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Reid Minty (a firm) v Taylor CA 2002
New CPR govern Indemnity Costs awards
The defendant had successfully defended the main claim and now appealed against the refusal of an order for costs on an indemnity basis even though judge thought that the claimants had behaved unreasonably. He had said that some conduct deserving of . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Fosberry and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 22-May-2007
The claimant appealed against an order setting at nil his costs after the court found that his agreement with his solicitors as to payment infringed the relative regulations. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Costs

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.229617

A Practitioner v Customs and Excise: VDT 12 Dec 2003

PROCEDURE – hearing in public or private – VAT Tribunals Rules 1986 r 24(1) – assessment to recover allegedly over-claimed input tax – VATA 1994 ss 25, 26, VAT Regs 1995, reg 29, Sixth Directive art 18 – Human Rights Convention arts 6 and 8 – appellant a sole practitioner solicitor – application for hearing of appeal in private -protection of client confidentiality – assertion of risk of damage to reputation – Civil Procedure Rules 1998 Part 39 – no sufficient reason for hearing in private – application refused

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18459

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Storer v British Gas plc CA 25-Feb-2000
An industrial tribunal hearing conducted behind the locked doors of the chairman’s office was not held in public, even if, in fact, no member of the public was prevented from attending. The obligation to sit in public was fundamental, and the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.221364

TJ’s Cafe v Customs and Excise: VDT 29 Apr 2005

VAT – Appeal against compulsory registration – Appellant’s takings above the registration threshold by a small amount – Held the Commissioners have no discretion not to register a trader in such circumstances – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19073

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.228533

Compass Contract UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 6 May 2005

VALUE ADDED TAX – zero-rating – supplies of cold food from outlets within larger building – VATA 1994, Sch 8 Group 1 Item 1 – whether supplies made ‘in the course of catering’ – meaning of ‘catering’ – supplies not made in the course of catering – whether food to be consumed ‘on the premises’ – Note (3) to Item – food not consumed on premises of supply – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19053

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 15 July 2022; Ref: scu.225167

Vald Birn (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 1 Apr 2008

VAT – DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Appellant ceased trading – Managing director responsible for the VAT administration – unable to solicit help from former employees – a large surcharge in excess of pounds 50,000 – a prudent business person would have anticipated and dealt with the problems experienced by the Appellant – the large surcharge arose from the Appellant’s persistent failure to comply with the deadlines – no reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20638

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267513

Casa Frattini Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 11 Apr 2008

VDT ASSESSMENTS – Making – Validity – Assessments made on Appellant – Appellant contends that trade was carried on by ex-director – Appellant was registered as taxable person in respect of business – Whether Appellant has established that business was carried on by ex-director and not by Appellant – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20645

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267501

Catering Cuisine Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 16 Apr 2008

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – Assessment – Eat-in and Takeaway restaurant – No system in place for ensuring all bills accounted for – Observations made by Customs officers – Cashing-up observed on separate occasion – Appellant did not request officers’ presence for cross-examination – No evidence provided by Appellant to account for discrepancies found by officers – Assessment made to best judgment – Appeal dismissed

Judges:

J C Gort

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20652

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267502

Lincoln Assurance Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 17 Mar 2008

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – Appellant made exempt supplies of finance (the sale of securities) outside the member states with a right of recovery of input tax (specified supplies) as well as taxable and exempt supplies – no goods or services supplied to the Appellant were used exclusively in making specified supplies – whether the input tax on goods or services used in part in making specified supplies was to be attributed to specified supplies by reference to the proportion which the value of the specified supplies bore to the value of total supplies – yes – appeal allowed – VATA 1994 Ss 24-26; VAT (Input Tax) (Specified Supplies) Order 1992 SI 1992 No. 3123; VAT General Regulations 1995 SI 1995 No. 2518 Regs 101 to 103.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20619

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267477

Institute of Biomedical Science v Revenue and Customs: VDT 12 Mar 2008

VDT VAT – Recovery of input tax – Determination of amount of taxable supplies – Apportionment of fees of professional association between exempt supplies and taxable supplies relating to publications – ESC 3.35 – Appointment on basis of cost – Determining ‘cost’ when no cash expense

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20609

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Annex – Institute of Biomedical Science v Revenue and Customs (Annex) VDT 12-Mar-2008
(Annex) . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267471

Institute of Biomedical Science v Revenue and Customs (Annex): VDT 12 Mar 2008

(Annex)

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20609

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Annex – Institute of Biomedical Science v Revenue and Customs VDT 12-Mar-2008
VDT VAT – Recovery of input tax – Determination of amount of taxable supplies – Apportionment of fees of professional association between exempt supplies and taxable supplies relating to publications – ESC 3.35 – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.267472

Revenue and Customs v The Ice Rink Company Ltd and Another: UTTC 8 Apr 2019

VAT – Single or multiple supply – whether supply of children’s skates as part of a ‘skating with skates’ package is a separate zero-rated supply – HMRC’s appeal allowed – taxpayers’ cross-appeal dismissed – case remitted to FTT for reconsideration

Citations:

[2019] UKUT 108 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 14 July 2022; Ref: scu.639515

Mayfair Executive Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Mar 2011

FTTTx Value Added Tax – MTIC case involving 13 purchases and sales made in a three day period and involving the same supplier and customer – high standard of due diligence – whether the Appellant knew or ought to have known that its transactions were connected to fraud – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 148 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.442935

The Atrium Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 21 Jan 2009

EXEMPT SUPPLY – Sporting services – Eligible body – Proprietary fitness club – Supplies of sporting services to members – Percentage of turnover paid to Appellant as licence fee – Licence fee assessed to tax on supplies to members – Whether supplies made by Appellant and not by proprietary club – No – Sixth EC Directive Art 13A.1(m)
ABUSIVE PRACTICE – Halifax principle – Adoption of scheme to make supplier of sporting services an eligible body – Whether abusive practice -No, because scheme failed to avoid tax anyway – Whether in any event transactions could be redefined to support assessment – No – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKVAT V20933

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.301712

Pegasus Communications (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 28 Jan 2008

Appeal against a decision of the Respondents with respect to surcharge assessments in the sums of andpound;3105.61, andpound;2218.89 and andpound;658.87 and being a reasonable excuse appeal as defined by rule 2 of the Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986.
Held: Dismissed as to two appeals but allowed as to the third.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20556

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264550

Thermal Transfer Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 30 Jan 2008

VDT VAT DEFAULT SURCHARGE: Payment on account trader – Reasonable Excuse for not paying VAT by the due dates – Trader arranged for payments to be made by same day CHAPS transfer before the agreed cut-off time – bank delayed payment unable to authenticate the fax instruction – the trader supplied a list of four people to cover this eventuality – satisfied the trader exercised due diligence and reasonable foresight – reasonable excuse – Appeal allowed – costs limited to out of pocket expenses.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20560

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264552

Koninklijke Ahold v Staatssecretaris van Financi: ECJ 24 Jan 2008

(Opinion) The court considered the application of rounding procedures to VAT. Two issues arose: whether rounding was to be applied on a per item or per receipt basis and whether the matter was governed by national or Uuropean laws.
Held: There were no express rules governing this in European legislation, and therefore the matter was one for national governments. However a national rule which allowed rounding down on a per item basis was inconsistent with European law.

Citations:

C-484/06, [2008] EUECJ C-484/06 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Koninklijke Ahold v Staatssecretaris van Financi ECJ 10-Jul-2008
ECJ Reference for a preliminary ruling First and Sixth VAT directives – Principles of fiscal neutrality and proportionality – Rules concerning rounding of amounts of VAT Rounding down per item . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.264001

TGH (Construction) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Feb 2016

Vat – Zero-Rating : Building Work – VALUE ADDED TAX – zero rating – construction of a garage and workshop – accepted as constructed at the same time as a relevant residential building – whether ‘used together as a unit solely for relevant residential purposes’ – yes – appeal ALLOWED

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 52 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.559942

MJ Hickey Plant Hire and Contracts Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 4 Feb 2016

VAT – Penalties – penalty for inaccuracies in returns – timing errors ‘deliberate but not concealed’ – determination of potential lost revenue – paragraphs 5 and 8 of Schedule 24 to FA 2007 – whether ‘normal rule’ or ‘delayed tax’ approach – regulations 34 and 35 of VAT Regulations 1995 considered – interaction with default surcharge regime – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 61

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.559935

Conde Nast Publications Ltd v Customs and Excise: ChD 10 Jun 2005

Judges:

Warren J

Citations:

[2005] EWHC 1167 (Ch), [2005] Eu LR 1014, [2005] BVC 478, [2005] BTC 5447, [2005] STC 1327, [2005] STI 1093

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Conde Nast Publications Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 7-Dec-2004
VDT Value added tax – input tax – time limits – whether appellant able to claim unclaimed input tax incurred more than three years previously despite regulation 29(1A) of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Conde Nast Publications Ltd v Customs and Excise CA 11-Jul-2006
The court was asked as to the time available to a taxpayer to make a claim for repayment of under-deducted input tax under regulation 29.
Held: Though it might itself feel some discomfort at an earlier judgment interpreting a judgment of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 13 July 2022; Ref: scu.226739

HM Revenue and Customs v Weight Watchers (UK) Ltd: ChD 21 Jan 2008

The court was asked whether the weight-watchers program which included attendance at a course and a supply of supporting materials was one single standard-rated supply or separate supplies of zero-rated printed materials and standard-rated support services.
Held: The court asked whether if the tribunal was mistaken as to the law the court should overrule the decision and said that as a specialist tribunal the court should be circumspect before making the decision itself. That degree of caution was not as high as the Edwards v Bairstow question.
The issue was whether the materials are so closely linked to the services provided at the Meetings that they form objectively a single indivisible supply which it would be artificial to split. There were mixed supplies both at the first meeting and thereafter. The Tribunal in the present case had applied the correct legal test to the primary facts found by them. The appeal was dismissed as regards the first meeting’s materials. As to later materials it would be artificial to split them from the meetings at which they were used, and the tax payers appeal succeeded in this respect.

Judges:

Morgan J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 53 (Ch), [2008] BVC 254, [2008] BTC 5129, [2008] STC 301, [2008] STI 180

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

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 . .
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 – Levob Verzekeringen and Ov Bank v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 27-Oct-2005
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 2, 5, 6 and 9 – Transfer of software recorded on a carrier – Subsequent customisation of the software to the purchaser-?s specific requirements – Single taxable supply – Supply . .
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 – Beynon and Partners v Customs and Excise HL 25-Nov-2004
The House asked whether the personal administration of a drug such as a vaccine by an NHS doctor to a patient is a taxable supply for the purposes of value added tax. The provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical . .
Cited – Edwards (Inspector of Taxes) v Bairstow HL 25-Jul-1955
The House was asked whether a particular transaction was ‘an adventure in the nature of trade’.
Held: Although the House accepted that this was ‘an inference of fact’, on the primary facts as found by the Commissioners ‘the true and only . .
Cited – Cooke v Secretary of State for Social Security CA 25-Apr-2001
Although production of a new medical report, or of a new medical opinion, could evidence a relevant change of circumstances, to support the claim that the threshold had been reached so as to allow a review of a decision to grant benefits, it did not . .
Cited – Napp Pharmaceutical Holdings Ltd v Director General of Fair Trading CA 8-May-2002
The applicant sought leave to appeal against a decision of the Competition Commission Appeals Tribunal.
Held: Since the decision of the tribunal did not involve questions of law, it fell exactly within the Cooke case, and the court should be . .
Cited – Secretary of State for the Home Department v AH (Sudan) and others HL 14-Nov-2007
The three respondents had fled persecution in Darfur. They sought asylum which was refused, and they now appealed. It was argued that whilst they had a well founded fear of persecution in Dhafur, that would not apply if they returned to Khartoum. . .
Cited – Able (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 22-Nov-2007
The taxpayer company had received compensation for having been excluded from its business premises for a period until a compulsory purchase process failed. It treated the receipt as capital. The revenue said it was income.
Held: The court . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Litigation Practice

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.263803

Baxi Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: CA 20 Dec 2007

Judges:

Tuckey, Maurice Kay, LJJ, Sir John Chadwick

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 1378

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At VDT – Baxi Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 20-Jan-2006
VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – promotional scheme – manufacturer and distributor of domestic heating appliances awarding points to installers purchasing its appliances – points redeemable for gifts listed in catalogue -scheme run by marketing company . .
Appeal from – Baxi Group Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 21-Dec-2006
The court was asked whether the Tribunal had erred in law in dismissing an appeal by Baxi Group Limited from a decision of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise, confirmed in a letter dated 3 June 2004, to refuse a voluntary disclosure claim for . .

Cited by:

Reference (Baxi) – Loyalty Management UK (Taxation) ECJ 7-Oct-2010
ECJ (prelimiary ruling) Sixth VAT Directive – Taxable amount – Sales promotion scheme – Loyalty rewards scheme allowing customers to earn points from traders and to redeem them for loyalty rewards – Payments made . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 12 July 2022; Ref: scu.262928