Category: VAT

Weald Leasing Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 6 Feb 2007

VDT VAT – AVOIDANCE – Abuse of rights – Appellant associate of exempt trader purchasing assets to lease to separate company to lease on to exempt trader – Associate outside VAT group – Associate credited with input tax on purchases – Insertion of separate company avoided direction under VATA 1994 Sch 6 para 1 – Purpose of transaction to avoid or defer VAT of exempt trader – Halifax ECJ [2006] STC 919 considered – Purpose of legislation – Whether transactions contrary to purpose – Redefinition of transactions if abuse – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2007] UKVAT V20003

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Halifax plc etc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 21-Feb-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2), Article 5(1) and Article 6(1) – Economic activity – Supplies of goods – Supplies of services – Abusive practice – Transactions designed solely to . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – HM Revenue and Customs v Weald Leasing Ltd ChD 16-Jan-2008
. .
At VDT – Weald Leasing (Taxation) ECJ 26-Oct-2010
ECJ Opinion – Value added tax (VAT) – Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC – Concept of ‘abusive practice’ and ‘normal commercial operations’ – Transaction designed solely to obtain a tax advantage – Leasing and . .
At VDT – HM Revenue and Customs v Weald Leasing (Taxation) ECJ 2-Dec-2010
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Concept of ‘abusive practice’ – Leasing transactions effected by a group of undertakings to spread the payment of non-deductible VAT . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249789

Newman and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 7 Feb 2007

VDT DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Electronic payment – Instruction to bank by home computer on Friday evening – Transfer by BACS started Monday – Customs credited at Bank of England Wednesday – Due date under extension Tuesday – VAT Regs 1995 reg 40(3) – Notice 700 para 21.3.1 – Payment late – On facts no reasonable excuse – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2007] UKVAT V20006

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249782

Mobilx Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 6 Oct 2006

VDT STRIKE-OUT – whether tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an appeal as to the amount of input tax reclaimable when HMRC reserve their position as to whether they will admit the reclaim in whole or in part – yes – applications to strike out the appeals dismissed.

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19966

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Mobilx Ltd v Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Feb-2007
The Revenue appealed a decision of the VDT that it had jurisdiction to hear appeals on repayment of input tax claimed.
Held: The taxpayer did not have a right to appeal where there had been a delay. An appeal could only lie against a decision . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249792

Mahboob v Revenue and Customs: VDT 13 Nov 2006

VAT – INPUT TAX – cars – BMW X5 Diesel Sport purchased by proprietor of post offices and newsagents – no valid VAT invoice produced – input tax sought to be recovered on basis that vehicle acquired exclusively for business use – vehicle found to have been made available for private use – appeal against refusal to allow input tax claim dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19882

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249798

Ali v Revenue and Customs: VDT 13 Nov 2006

VAT – takeaway food shop -appellant unregistered – commissioners enquiries indicated ought to have been registered – appellant invited to apply for registration – having applied and been registered rendering of returns showing no liability to tax – assessment in default of proper returns by taxpayer based on appellant’s own takings figures – assessments held to be to best judgment – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19883

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249793

Brown v Revenue and Customs: VDT 13 Nov 2006

VALUE ADDED TAX – zero-rating – work ‘in the course of construction of a new dwelling’ – VATA 1994 s 30, Sch 8 Group 5 Item 2 – demolition of house damaged in arson attack – later erection of replacement dwelling – whether demolition undertaken ‘in course of construction’ of new dwelling – whether demolition zero-rated – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19884

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.249794

Bioforce v Oberfinanzdirektion Munchen: ECJ 14 Jan 1993

ECJ The Common Customs Tariff must be interpreted as meaning that an extract of hawthorn with added alcohol, entitled ‘Weissdorn-Tropfen’ (hawthorn drops), must be classified under heading 30.04 of the Combined Nomenclature. Taken in appropriate doses determined by medical prescription, that product has clearly defined therapeutic and above all prophylactic characteristics, the effect of which is concentrated on precise functions of the human organism, namely the cardiac, circulatory and neuro-vegetative functions. Moreover, the alcohol contained in the product in question, however high the percentage may be, far from changing its nature, acts on the contrary as an adjuvant, a preservative and a vehicle for its active principles.

Citations:

C-177/91, [1993] EUECJ C-177/91, [1993] ECR I-45

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Sony Computer Entertainment Europe Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 27-Jul-2005
The appellants had imported Playstation computer games. They appealed refusal of a rebate of 50 million euros paid in VAT before a reclassification of the equipment so as to make it exempt from VAT.
Held: ‘The effect of the annulment of a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.160737

Curtises Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Vat – Penalties : Other): FTTTx 20 Apr 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – penalty for failure to take reasonable steps to notify the Respondents of an under-assessment – penalty equal to 15% of the ‘potential lost revenue’ – definition of ‘potential lost revenue’ discussed – consideration of whether there were ‘special circumstances’ and whether the penalty was disproportionate – penalty upheld

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 227 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 10 July 2022; Ref: scu.609260

Hurndalls v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Apr 2014

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Claim for bad debt relief by a firm that had invoiced a client on a contingent basis at the time it was reporting for VAT on the cash basis, followed by the payment of the VAT at the point the firm deregistered – Whether bad debt relief could be claimed, following the write-off of the receivables in 2013 – Whether we had jurisdiction to deal with secondary claims based on reliance by the Appellant upon claimed phone discussions with HMRC officers in which it was said that the officers had indicated that bad debt claims could be made – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 404 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.525350

Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners: CA 31 Jan 2007

The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants argued (inter alia) that the attempted recovery was void under the Billl of Rights.
Held: The revenue’s appeal failed. The claim was a proper claim for damages: ‘the crucial issue is to determine the nature of this claim in conspiracy. Assuming for the purpose of this argument that a claim in conspiracy does lie, then this is a claim for damages for a perfectly proper, well-recognised tort, the tort of conspiring together to defraud the claimant. That the measure of damages suffered by such a claimant may be measured by reference to the amount by which the Exchequer’s income is depleted does not in our view alter the essential character of the claim as one for damages, not as a levy of money for the use of the Crown without grant of Parliament. ‘ However, the Baldaz case, which was binding on the court, required the commissioners to establish an unlawful act actionable at their suit in order to pursue a claim for an unlawful means conspiracy. It had not done so.

Judges:

Ward LJ, Chadwick LJ, Gage LJ

Citations:

[2007] EWCA Civ 39, [2007] 2 WLR 1156

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 1, EC Sixth Council Directive on the harmonisation of the laws of the member States relating to turnover taxes (77/388/EEC) 28c(A)(a), Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 134

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Bond House Systems Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 8-May-2003
The Tribunal described the general nature of a carousel fraud: ‘In its simplest form a carousel fraud works in this way. A VAT-registered trader, A, in one European Union member state sells taxable goods to a VAT-registered trader, B, in another . .
Cited – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Cited – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Cited – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Cited – Lonhro plc v Fayed 19-Jul-1988
The plaintiff and defendant competed in bidding for a public company. The plaintiff having been restrained by the Secretary of State, alleged that the defendant had used a fraudulent misrepresentation to achieve this.
Held: It was not a tort . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd CA 1921
The Food Controller had been given power under the Defence of the Realm Acts to regulate milk sales. In granting the dairy a licence to buy milk in Cornwall, Devon, Dorset and Somerset, the Food Controller required the Dairy to pay 2d. per imperial . .
Cited – Attorney-General v Wilts United Dairies Ltd HL 1922
The House heard an appeal by the Attorney-General against a finding that an imposition of duty on milk sales was unlawful.
Held: The appeal failed. The levy was unlawful. Lord Buckmaster said: ‘Neither of those two enactments enabled the Food . .
Cited – Congreve v Secretary of State for the Home Office CA 1976
The appellant had bought his television licence when the charge was andpound;12 although the minister had already announced that it would later be increased to andpound;18. The Home Office wrote to those who had purchased their licence before the . .
Cited – Gosling v Veley 1850
Wilde CJ said: ‘The rule of law that no pecuniary burden can be imposed upon the subjects of this country, by whatever name it may be called, whether tax, due, rate, or toll, except under clear and distinct legal authority, established by those who . .
Cited – Crofter Hand Woven Harris Tweed Company Limited v Veitch HL 15-Dec-1941
The plaintiffs sought an interdict against the respondents, a dockers’ union, who sought to impose an embargo on their tweeds as they passed through the port of Stornoway.
Held: A trade embargo was not tortious because the predominant purpose . .
Cited – Sorrell v Smith HL 1925
Torts of Conspiracy by Unlawful Means
The plaintiff had struck the first blow in a commercial battle between the parties, and the defendant then defended himself, whereupon the plaintiff sued him.
Lord Cave quoted the French saying: ‘cet animal est tres mechant; quand on . .
Cited – Hargreaves v Bretherton 1959
The Plaintiff pleaded that the First Defendant police officer had falsely and maliciously and without justification or excuse committed perjury at the Plaintiff’s trial on charges of criminal offences and that as a result the Plaintiff had been . .
Cited – Mbasogo, President of the State of Equatorial Guinea and Another v Logo Ltd and others CA 23-Oct-2006
Foreign Public Law Not Enforceable Here
The claimant alleged a conspiracy by the defendants for his overthrow by means of a private coup d’etat. The defendants denied that the court had jurisdiction. The claimants appealed dismissal of their claim to damages.
Held: The claims were . .
Cited – Williams v Hursey 1959
High Court of Australia – For an unlawful means conspiracy, the plaintiff must prove that the combination or agreement was to engage in conduct which amounted to unlawful means . .
Cited – Marrinan v Vibart CA 1962
The court considered an action in the form an attempt to circumvent the immunity of a witness at civil law by alleging a conspiracy.
Held: The claim was rejected. The court considered the basis of the immunity from action given to witnesses. . .
Cited – Re Holmden’s Settlement Trusts CA 1966
Lord Denning MR said: ‘I must, however, consider the statement of Lord Upjohn on the footing that it is one of two reasons which he gave for his decision. It is said that both reasons are binding on all courts in the land, including the House of . .
Cited – Regina v Mavji CACD 1987
The court considered the offence of cheating the public revenue.
Held: Cheating might include any form of fraudulent conduct which resulted in diverting money from the revenue and depriving the revenue of money to which it was entitled. . .
Binding – Applied – Powell and Another v Boldaz and others CA 1-Jul-1997
The plaintiff’s son aged 10 died of Addison’s Disease which had not been diagnosed. An action against the Health Authority was settled. The parents then brought an action against 5 doctors in their local GP Practice in relation to matters that had . .
Cited – Kuwait Oil Tanker Company SAK and Another v Al Bader and Others CA 18-May-2000
The differences between tortious conspiracies where the underlying acts were either themselves unlawful or not, did not require that the conspiracy claim be merged in the underlying acts where those acts were tortious. A civil conspiracy to injure . .
Cited – Michaels and Michaels v Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd, etc ChD 19-Apr-2000
The respondents sought to strike out the claim for conspiracy and failure to comply with the Act. The respondent was landlord of premises occupied by the claimants. They had served a notice under the Act of their intention to sell.
Held: The . .
Cited – Morelle Ltd v Wakeling CA 1955
The plaintiff asserted ownership of leasehold land. A similar situation had arisen in an earlier case befoe the Court of appeal, and the court was asked to decide that that case had been decided per incuriam.
Held: The per incuriam principle . .
Cited – Williams v Fawcett CA 1985
The court was asked as to the requirement of a notice to show cause why a person should not be committed to prison for contempt of court.
Held: The court refused to follow its earlier decisions as to committal procedures where they were the . .
Cited – Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another HL 25-Oct-2006
The tax payer had overpaid Advance Corporation Tax under an error of law. It sought repayment. The revenue contended that the claim was time barred.
Held: The claim was in restitution, and the limitation period began to run from the date when . .
Cited – Generale Bank Nederland Nv (Formerly Credit Lyonnais Bank Nederland Nv) v Export Credit Guarantee Department CA 23-Jul-1997
The bank claimed that it had been defrauded, and that since an employee of the defendant had taken part in the fraud the defendant was had vicarious liability for his participation even though they knew nothing of it.
Held: Where A becomes . .

Cited by:

Cited – Total Network Sl v Revenue and Customs HL 12-Mar-2008
The House was asked whether an action for unlawful means conspiracy was available against a participant in a missing trader intra-community, or carousel, fraud. The company appealed a finding of liability saying that the VAT Act and Regulations . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Torts – Other, VAT, Customs and Excise

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.248324

Hicks and Another (T/A Parc Golf Centre) v Customs and Excise: VDT 8 May 2003

ASSESSMENT – Time Limit for making assessment – Time when assessment ‘made’ – Meaning of ‘made’ – Form VAT 641 containing 1g assessments – Signed by assessing and check officers within time limit- Our assessment only required countersignature – VAT 641 countersigned outside time limit – Whether the remaining assessments ‘made’ within time limit – Appeal dismissed – VATA 1994, SS 73(1), (6), 77(1)

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18121

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247564

Francis and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 5 Dec 2006

VAT – Registration – Single taxable person direction – Husband operating hairdressing salon on ground floor – Wife operating beauty salon in basement – Whether ‘closely bound to one another by financial, economic and organisational links’ – EEC 6th Dir (77/388/EEC) Art 4.4 – VAT Act 1994 s.84(7), Sch 1 para 1A, 2 – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19919

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 09 July 2022; Ref: scu.247554

Brogden v Revenue and Customs: VDT 10 Oct 2006

VDT REGISTRATION – the Appellant started selling own and wife’s personal collections of various items on eBay – whether conducting a business – no account taken of prior ownership of goods – whether should be registered as a partnership – whether acting as agent for wife

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19827

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246137

Jacobs (on Behalf of the Batchwood Hall Bowling Club) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 4 Oct 2006

VDT ZERO-RATING – whether Community Amateur Sports Club enjoying similar direct tax reliefs to a charity is entitled to zero-rating for the construction of a disabled toilet required by the Disability Discrimination Act 2004 – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19797

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 08 July 2022; Ref: scu.246161

Riverside Housing Association Ltd v Revenue and Customs: ChD 3 Oct 2006

The court was asked whether the building of a divisional head office for a charitable body, a social housing landlord, was zero-rated for VAT.
Held: Being a social landlord was not enough to qualify the landlord to be entering into construction ‘other than in the furtherance of a business’ for value-added tax purposes.

Judges:

Justice Lawrence Collins

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 2383 (Ch), Times 01-Nov-2006

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.245175

Taylor (T/A Chew Magna Post Office) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 26 Jul 2006

VDT INPUT TAX – whether VAT paid for a sub Post Office counter and security screen was deductible in respect of general stores business carried on at the same address . No – appeal against assessment to recover tax dismissed – VATA 1994, ss 24 and 26 – EC Council Directive 77/388 Art 17(2).

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19740

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Council Directive 77/388 17(2

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244763

Prebble C and Prebble H (Trading In Partnership) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 18 Aug 2006

VDT PROCEDURE – Application to set decision aside – Failure to appear at the hearing – Appellant failed to appear at hearing when appeal was determined against him – Appellant applied to have decision set aside – Whether just to do so – Value Added Tax Tribunals Rules 1986 r. 26(3)

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19722

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244783

The Trustees of Langley House Trust v Revenue and Customs: VDT 29 Aug 2006

VDT LATE REGISTRATION PENALTY – reasonable excuse – advice taken by non-registered charity on whether point A made them registrable resulting in obtaining further advice that identified point B leading to an earlier registration date while concluding that point A on its own would not have made the Appellant registrable – whether Appellant has reasonable excuse – yes – whether loses that defence because of taking further advice rather than informing Customs about point A – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19749

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244788

Prudential Insurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 12 Apr 2006

PRACTICE – public interest immunity – parts of Manuals withheld from publication because disclosure would prejudice the assessment or collection of tax or assist tax avoidance or evasion – PII should be claimed before the Tribunal in the same way as in court with a certificate by the Commissioners – after inspection of the documents the claim for PII was upheld

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19675

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Taxes Management

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244216

Mehmet Gurbuz v Revenue and Customs: VDT 8 Aug 2006

VDT Late registration – Penalty – Assessment – Whether Appellant liable to be registered from date in 2001 – Yes – Whether penalty for his failure to notify liability to be registered properly imposed – Yes – Whether assessment in correct amount – Yes – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19682

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244225

Satis Italsempione SA v Revenue and Customs: VDT 8 Aug 2006

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – Cancellation of registration from date after registration – Intra EU supplies of transport using UK VAT number – Place of Supply and Reverse Charge meant taxable person whilst register – no power to deregister or cancel from date after registration – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19683

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.244226

Bennett v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (No 2): ChD 27 Feb 2001

There was nothing to prevent the Commissioners withdrawing one assessment and replacing it with another even after an adjudication on the first by a tribunal, but they could not do this in such a way as to attempt to relitigate the issues determined.

Citations:

Gazette 29-Mar-2001, Times 27-Feb-2001

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 73, Human Rights Act 1998

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Human Rights, VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.78340

Leach v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Jun 2019

VAT – Assessment To Reclaim Overpaid Input Tax – extended 20 year time limit for deliberate behaviour under VATA s 77 – the Court of Appeal’s judgment in Tooth considered and applied – penalty for deliberate and concealed inaccuracies – meaning of ‘deliberate’ in Sch 24 in the light of Tooth – meaning distinguished – meaning of ‘concealed’ – assessment and penalty upheld

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 352 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.638533

Malik v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jun 2019

Value Added Tax – Penalty for Deliberate and Concealed Failure To Notify requirement to register for VAT – personal liability of an officer of the taxpayer – paragraph 22 of schedule 41 to Finance Act 2008 – was the appellant a shadow director or manager of the taxpayer – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 370 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.638536

Bramall Contracts Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Input Tax : Cars): FTTTx 9 Aug 2018

VAT – claim for overpaid output tax on bonuses – validity of claim depending on whether VAT could have been offset – whether fleet leasing companies entitled to reclaim input tax on purchase of cars before 1 August 1995 – not on facts – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 470 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.632233

The Serpentine Trust Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Other : VAT – Other): FTTTx 31 Jul 2018

VAT – supporter schemes and charitable donations – ADR meeting – FTT jurisdiction – what did the ADR decide – was there a contract – if a contract, whether unilateral mistake by HMRC – whether HMRC have the vires to make an agreement in those terms – held, agreement ultra vires

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 535 (TC), [2019] SFTD 1, [2018] STI 1836

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.632228

Languard New Homes Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Vat – Zero-Rating : Building Work): FTTTx 25 Feb 2016

VALUE ADDED TAX – Section 30 Value Added Tax Act 1994 – Group 5 of Schedule 8 to that Act – conversion of property – grant of first major interest – whether grant is zero-rated supply – yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 129 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.561854

4 Distribution Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 20 Jan 2009

VDT VAT – MTIC fraud – input tax – Preliminary hearing – Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to consider the question of whether HMRC have unlawfully discriminated against the Appellant in subjecting its claim for repayment of input tax to ‘extended verification’ and refusing it, as opposed to considering the question of the amount of input tax of which the Appellant is entitled to repayment – held, it has not such jurisdiction – Whether any question of Community law is raised by the Appellant’s discrimination argument, which should be referred to the ECJ – the Tribunal will not make a reference at this preliminary stage – the Tribunal comments that it might consider it necessary to make a reference after the substantive hearing of the appeal if it found on the facts that the Appellant had objective knowledge of the fraud and that the requirement for equal treatment for domestic transactions and intra-Community transactions had been breached – in that case a reference might be necessary to determine whether such breach was justified, and, if it was not, whether that fact affected the Tribunal’s duty to apply the law as stated in Axel Kittel at para [61] according to its terms – Findings of fact made in relation to HMRC’s policy in combating MTIC fraud.

Citations:

[2009] UKVAT V20931

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.301711

Conde Nast Publications Ltd v Revenue and Customs: CA 11 Jul 2006

Time limits for reclaim of VAT. The Court considered an argument that it should treat the Court of Appeal decision in Fleming (t/a Bodycraft) v Customs and Excise Commissioners [2006] STC 864 as inconsistent with EU law.
Held: Chadwick LJ said: ‘I am content to assume that there may be circumstances in which the obligation imposed on courts by s 3(1) of the European Communities Act 1972 would require this court to refuse to follow its own earlier decision as to the meaning and effect of a Community instrument-including, in the present context, the effect of a judgment of the Court of Justice. Those circumstances would, I think, include a case in which the judgment of the Court of Justice under consideration by this court in the earlier case had been the subject of further consideration-and consequent interpretation, explanation or qualification-by the Court of Justice in a later judgment. But, as it seems to me, one constitution in this court should not substitute its own view as to the effect of a judgment of the Court of Justice for the view which has been reached by another constitution in this court in an earlier case on consideration of the same judgment in circumstances in which there has been no opportunity for the Court of Justice to review that judgment. In those circumstances, if persuaded that there are strong grounds for thinking that the earlier decision is wrong (as a matter of Community law) this court may think it right to refer the point to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. Or it may follow the earlier decision and give permission to appeal. But it should not refuse to follow the earlier decision merely because, on the same material and the same arguments, it is satisfied that a different conclusion should have been reached.’

Judges:

Chadwick LJ, Arden LJ, Smith LJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 976, [2006] Eu LR 1152, [2007] 2 CMLR 35, [2006] BVC 625, [2006] STI 1881, [2006] STC 1721, [2006] BTC 5555

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994, European Communities Act 1972 3(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At VDT – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.243139

Rudge v Revenue Customs: VDT 7 Jun 2006

VDT INPUT TAX – BMW motor car – taxpayer claiming car purchased and used by him solely for business purposes – taxpayer consequently claming entitlement to credit in respect of input tax – whether at date of supply taxpayer intending to make car available for private use – appeal dismissed – VAT (Input Tax) order 1992 art 7(2E)(a), (2G)(b).

Judges:

Huggins C

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19615

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

VAT (Input Tax) Order 1992

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242820

Micropoint (Uk )Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 22 Jun 2006

VDT Input tax – Whether supplies evidenced by invoices were made – Purchase and sale by Appellant of cine-projectors on pallets in warehouse of freight forwarder – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19630

Links:

Bailii

Citing:

Cited – Customs and Excise Commissioners v Oliver 1980
Griffiths J considered what was meant by possession of goods: ‘By ‘possession’ is meant in this context control over the goods in the sense of having the immediate facility for their use. This may or may not involve the physical removal of the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242816

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 judgment – whether interest payable in addition – yes – whether rate of interest to be abated because of payment of repayment supplement – no – whether interest at borrower’s or lender’s rate -commercial, borrower’s rate adopted – whether interest to be simple or compounded – compounded – VATA 1994, ss 78, 79, 84, Senior Courts Act 1981, s 35A

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19578

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Senior Courts Act 1981 35A, Value Added Taxes Act 1994 78 79 84

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 . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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. . .
See Also – Totel Distribution Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 31-Mar-2011
VAT – MTIC – contra-trading – clean chain broker – knew or should have known? – yes – appeal dismissed. . .
At VDT – Totel Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and Another CA 31-Oct-2012
The appellant had requested a hardship allowance so as not to have to pay claimed VAT before the hearing of an appeal. That was refused, and the claimant now said that the rules restricting an appeal against such a refusal were unlawful.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242793

Ross Liddell Ltd v Revenue Customs: VDT 27 Apr 2006

Assessment: Appellant providing taxable and exempt supplies – recovery of input tax: assessment made on whole business without direct attribution – whether to best judgement – appeal allowed. VATA 1994 s.73, Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 101(2).

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19559

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242767

Revenue and Customs v Loyalty Management UK Ltd: ChD 22 Jun 2006

The taxpayer operated a substantial loyalty reward scheme (Nectar) for assorted companies. The Revenue appealed against an order allowing the company to reclaim input VAT. The court was asked now: ‘what is the proper characteristic, for VAT purposes, of the payment made by LMUK to those other suppliers; is it a payment for a redemption service supplied to LMUK or is it the whole or part of the price paid for the provision by those other Suppliers of the rewards to the customers? Is there, for VAT purposes, a supply of a redemption service to LMUK or of goods or services to the customers?’
Held: Though the matter was incompleteley argued, the Revenue’s appeal succeeded. When goods were provided by a redeemer to a collector, that must be a supply of goods to the collector. That followed from the definition of a supply of goods in article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive (‘the transfer of the right to dispose of tangible property as owner’). The court preferred the argument of the Commissioners because ‘it seems to me the more consistent with the requirements, illustrated in Auto Lease and the coupon cases, that one should stand back and look at the characteristics of the provision and payment in issue in a relatively robust and commonsensical way’. Emphasis was placed upon the fact that the payments made by LMUK were related to the number of points redeemed, and upon the absence of any separately identifiable fee for the services provided to LMUK other than the provision of goods and services to collectors.

Judges:

Mr Justice Lindsay

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 1498 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive 77/388/EEC 17

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At VDT – Loyalty Management UK Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 6-Apr-2005
VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – the Appellant operates the Nectar programme under which customers who purchase goods (called primary goods) from certain retailers receive points which they may use to acquire . .
Applied – Auto Lease Holland BV v Bundesamt fur Finanzen ECJ 6-Feb-2003
The court identified the need to give an autonomous meaning to the phrase ‘supply of goods’ in article 5(1) of the Sixth Directive as follows: ‘ . . .. it is clear from the wording of that provision that ‘supply of goods’ does not refer to the . .

Cited by:

At ChD – Loyalty Management UK Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs CA 5-Oct-2007
The company (LMUK) managed a loyalty scheme for retailers. Their customers were awarded point sunder the schem on purchasing items, and then redeeemed those points against other purchases. LMUK sought to recover input tax on the invoices it paid to . .
At ChD – 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 . .
At ChD – Loyalty Management UK (Taxation) ECJ 7-Oct-2010
ECJ 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 by the operator of . .
At ChD – Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd SC 13-Mar-2013
The company managed a card loyalty scheme for retailers. The Revenue appealed against a decision that the company could reclaim VAT input tax on the goods purchased on the customers redeeming their points. The ECJ had decided that the service . .
At ChD – Revenue and Customs v Aimia Coalition Loyalty UK Ltd SC 20-Jun-2013
Decisions about the application of the VAT system are highly dependent upon the factual situations involved. The case-law of the Court of Justice indicates that, when determining the relevant supply in which a taxable person engages, regard must be . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242703

Hylton Roofing Ltd v Revenue Customs: VDT 27 Apr 2006

VAT DEFAULT SURCHARGE: reasonable excuse – book-keeper departed on one week notice – unable to find a replacement quickly which resulted in backlog of work and delay with VAT return – Appellant had three months to put in place cover arrangements which it failed to do -did not meet the standards of a prudent business person – no reasonable excuse – did the non-receipt of surcharge liability notice invalidate the default surcharge – Respondents not aware of this ground of Appeal until several days before the hearing – additional legal submissions invited on this ground of the Appeal – Appeal adjourned.

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19577

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 July 2022; Ref: scu.242766