Category: VAT

London Needs Cooling Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 29 Aug 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – default surcharge – delay in paying part of the tax due in respect of a prescribed accounting period allegedly caused by a fault in the Respondents’ system – whether or not a reasonable excuse – conclusion that, as this related to only part of the amount due, the issue of reasonable excuse was irrelevant – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 525 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.632255

Masterlease Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 15 Jul 2010

REPAYMENT CLAIM – VAT on HP contracts – Repossession – Whether ‘output tax which was not due’ in VATA 1994 s.80(1)(a) took account of output tax not declared on sale of repossessed cars – Yes
CARS – Sale of cars repossessed under HP contracts – Desupply – Some work including valeting before resale – ‘Same condition’ – VAT (Cars) Order 1992 Art 4.1(a) – Decision in principle – Adjourned to agree figures

Citations:

[2010] UKFTT 339 (TC), [2010] STI 2723, [2010] SFTD 1243

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.422320

Wong v Revenue and Customs: VDT 27 Apr 2006

VAT – tax assessments – no appearance by appellant and no challenge to tax assessed – appeal dismissed
VAT – civil evasion penalty – finding that evasion proved and inference drawn that it was dishonest – reduction in assessment for production of documents – appeal substantially dismissed by HMRC application for costs refused as result of their refusal to supply appellant with observation and test eating results

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19565

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241878

Amana Books Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 10 Apr 2006

VDT VAT – input tax – whether incurred wholly for purposes of the business – whether an obvious and clear association between business and the expenditure incurred – whether apportionment appropriate – yes – approach on facts to process of apportionment – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19541

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241845

Joy and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 27 Apr 2006

VAT ASSESSMENT and PARTIAL EXEMPTION: Appellants medical practice partnership claimed input tax in full on partners’ fuel expenses incurred on business/personal use – partnership subject to partial exemption regime – Respondents’ assessment for unpaid VAT included the input tax on fuel expenses in non-attributable supplies for1996 and 1997 partial exemption annual adjustment – Appellants contending that they should not have claimed input tax on the fuel expenses because they were partners’ expenses not partnership business expenses – Appellants had a choice under VAT legislation to claim input tax on fuel expenses – Appellants knowingly chose to claim input tax – cannot now say it was a mistake – Appellants’ accountants disregarded input tax on fuel supplies in 1998 annual adjustment – retrospectively correcting a perceived mistake – cannot be done under regulation 107 of 1995 Regulations – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19568

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241862

Nottinghamshire Wildlife Trust v Revenue and Customs: VDT 24 Feb 2006

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – charity with objectives of conserving natural areas of land – public access to land available – charity also keeping sheep and selling wool and meat, and selling timber from woodland – attribution of input tax – extent of Appellant’s business activities – Commissioners’ approach excessively restrictive – Appellant’s claims nevertheless overstated – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19540

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241844

Rahman and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 18 Apr 2006

VDT ASSESSMENT – Disallowed input tax – Cut, make and trim – Whether Appellant using sub-contractors – No evidence of work being carried out at alleged sub-contracting companies’ premises – Whether Respondents considered exercising discretion to allow claim – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19550

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241872

Lygate v Revenue and Customs: VDT 18 Apr 2006

VDT Default surcharge: One day late. HMRandC visit 3/11/05 when bank should have been instructed Appellants wife undergoing treatment in hospital relating to end stage of pregnancy; Appellant at hospital with wife; Bank instructed 4/11/05, monies received HMRandC one day late; Appeal allowed of consent.

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19552

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241864

Commissioners of Customs and Excise, Attorney General v Federation of Technological Industries and Others: ECJ 11 May 2006

ECJ (Taxation) C-197/03 Sixth VAT Directive – Articles 21(3) and 22(8) – National measures to combat fraud – Joint and several liability for the payment of VAT – Provision of security for VAT payable by another trader.

Citations:

[2006] EUECJ C-384/04, [2006] 3 CMLR 11

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

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.

VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241700

Abbey National plc, Inscape Investment Fund v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ECJ 4 May 2006

ECJ Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 13B(d)(6) – Management of special investment funds – Exemption – Meaning of -management – Functions of a depositary – Delegation of administrative management function.

Citations:

Times 06-Jun-2006, [2006] EUECJ C-169/04

Links:

Bailii

European, VAT

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.241474

Allen v HM Treasury and Another: ChD 17 Apr 2019

Trial of an action brought by the claimant claiming damages from the defendants (representing the United Kingdom as a Member State of the European Union) for failing to implement measures to remove a VAT exemption from Channel Island suppliers which, it is said, enabled those suppliers to compete with his business on unfairly advantageous terms (they could sell more cheaply) which eventually drove his company out of business.

Citations:

[2019] EWHC 1010 (Ch)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, European

Updated: 06 July 2022; Ref: scu.638173

Revenue and Customs v Zurich Insurance Company: ChD 23 Mar 2006

Consultancy services had been carried out in the UK for the UK brancjh of a Swiss coimpany. The contract was made in Switzerland, and the VAT invoice was issued there also.
Held: The UK branch of the company was liable for VAT.

Judges:

Park J

Citations:

[2006] EWHC 593 (Ch), Times 26-Apr-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 8 9

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240113

Emag Handel Eder (Taxation): ECJ 6 Apr 2006

ECJ Preliminary references – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 8(1)(a) and (b), the first paragraph of Article 28a(1)(a), Article 28b(A)(1) and the first paragraph of Article 28cA)(a) – Intra-Community dispatch or transport of goods – Supplies – Intra-Community acquisition of goods – Chain transactions – Place of transaction.

Citations:

C-245/04, [2006] EUECJ C-245/04

Links:

Bailii

European, VAT

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.240145

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Elm Milk Ltd: CA 3 Mar 2006

The taxpayer was sole director of a company. The company provided him with a car, and sought to recover the input VAT. The revenue disallowed the claim saying that it could not be shown to have been used exclusively for company business and not for private use.
Held: The taxpayer had a contract with the company which explicitly required it to be used only on company business and to be parked at the company. The keys were kept in the company office. Private use would be a breach of the director’s contract of employment. In these circumstances the company had done enough to show an intention that it be used exclusively on company business, and the company was able to reclaim the input tax.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lady Justice Arden Lord Justice Moore-Bick

Citations:

Times 20-Mar-2006, [2006] EWCA Civ 164

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992 7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At VDT – Elm Milk Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 16-Apr-2004
. .
Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Elm Milk Ltd ChD 3-Feb-2005
The taxpayer, was sole director of a company. The company provided him with a car, and sought to recover the input VAT. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239838

Plasma Trading Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 14 Mar 2006

VDT INPUT TAX – Whether there was genuine trade in platinum alloy – Whether Appellant knowingly involved in sham transactions – Hitch and Others v Stone (Inspector of Taxes) [2001] STC 214 considered
PROCEDURE – Whether statement of case adequately pleaded – Tribunal’s jurisdiction to strike out – Rules 19(4) and 27(4) VAT Tribunals Rules 1986 considered

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19499

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239980

Total UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 17 Mar 2006

VDT SUPPLY OF GOODS – Taxable amount – Points issued by supplier by reference to quantity of road fuel purchased – Points redeemable in return for face value voucher issued by high street store – Supplier purchases face value voucher – Whether taxable amount should be reduced by cost to supplier of face value voucher – EC Council Directive 77/388, arts 11A.1(a), 11C.1

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19502

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

EC Council Directive 77/388

VAT

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239986

Bristol Street Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 23 Dec 2005

VDT Value added tax – output tax recovery – S.80 VATA 1994 – whether Appellant able to recover overpaid tax for 23 year period outside the three year time period on supplies of demonstrator cars – no claim made for 3 year period – whether Appellant influenced by possible effect of partial exemption – whether the right question is whether BSG ‘would have’ or whether ‘could have’ made such a claim had there been an appropriate transitional period – Conde Nast Publications Ltd v HMRC considered – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19398

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.239990

Isle of Wight Council v Revenue and Customs: VDT 23 Jan 2006

VDT LOCAL AUTHORITIES – Off-street parking – Taxable person – Whether treatment as non-taxable person in relation to off-street parking activities would result in significant distortions of competition – No – Sixth VAT Directive (77/388/EEC) Act 4.5

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19427

Links:

Bailii

VAT, Local Government

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238963

King Engineering Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 25 Jan 2006

VDT VAT Default surcharge – VAT paid late by CHAPS but return received within 7 days at end of month – regulation 25(4L) VAT Regulations 1995 – no default in respect of return – reasonable excuse for late payment of VAT – taxpayer acting reasonably in confidently expecting a large payment – payment not received on time – appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19432

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238964

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 which acquired and distributed the gifts – whether VAT included in marketing company’s invoices to Appellant recoverable input tax – whether marketing company’s services single supply of marketing services or multiple supplies of services and goods – whether goods supplied to installers for third party consideration – no – gifts supplied to Appellant for onward disposal – Sixth VAT Directive arts 5(1), (6), 11(1)(a), 17(1), VATA 1994 ss 24(1), 26(1), Sch 4 paras 1(1), 5 input tax recoverable but Appellant liable to account for appropriate output tax – appeal dismissed

Judges:

Colin Bishopp (Chairman)

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19431

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

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 . .
At VDT – Baxi Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 20-Dec-2007
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238960

Revenue and Customs v RBS Deutschland Holdings Gmbh: SCS 13 Jan 2006

SCS The taxpayer, a German subsidiary of a UK bank, carried on a banking and leasing business in Germany. It did not have a place of establishment in the UK. It was registered in the UK for VAT as a non-established taxable person. It bought cars in the UK from an unconnected seller, and leased the cars back to the same group, with a put option requiring the cars to be bought back later. It paid VAT on the purchases but did not charge VAT on the leases. Under UK legislation the leases were treated as supplies made in Germany, and not subject to VAT in the UK, whereas under German law, having regard to the particular terms of the leases, they were treated as supplies made in the UK and therefore not subject to VAT in Germany. On the exercise of the put option, UK VAT was charged on the sale, but the taxpayer sought to deduct the input tax incurred on the purchase.

Judges:

Lord Clarke And Lady Dorrian And Lord Osborne

Citations:

[2006] ScotCS CSIH – 10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Citing:

At VDT (1) – RBS Deutschland Holdings Gmbh v Customs and Excise VDT 16-Nov-2004
VDT Application: Interlocutory Hearing – Jurisdiction – whether appeal raised in Edinburgh should be transmitted to London in respect that there was another connected appeal there – whether Appellants with . .
Appeal from – RBS Deutschland Holdings Gmbh v Revenue and Customs VDT 3-May-2005
VDT Applications – opposed motion to sist part of the proceedings in the appeal pending an ECJ Decision: Application for an order for disclosure of documents – necessity of documents, relevance to issue . .

Cited by:

At Inner House – RBS Deutschland Holdings Gmbh v Revenue and Customs VDT 24-Jul-2007
VDT VAT – deduction of input tax – leasing of cars within UK by German subsidiary company – cars purchased within UK, remaining there and subject to VAT in UK – leasing deemed to be supply of services in Germany . .
At Inner House – Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v RBS Deutschland Holdings ECJ 30-Sep-2010
ECJ Opinion – Interpretation of Article 17(3)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive – Transactions carried out with the sole aim of obtaining a tax advantage – Provision of vehicle leasing services in the United Kingdom . .
At Inner House – Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v RBS Deutschland Holdings ECJ 22-Dec-2010
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Right to deduction – Purchase of vehicles and use for leasing transactions – Differences between the tax regimes of two Member States – Prohibition of abusive practices
‘taxable . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238710

Fleming (T/A Bodycraft) v Revenue and Customs: CA 15 Feb 2006

The claimant sought repayment of VAT. The commissioners responded that there ws a three year cut off for reclaims.
Held: The introduction of the three year limit with no transitional provisions was in breach of Community law.

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 70, Times 01-Mar-2006, [2006] STC 864

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At Tribunal – Fleming (T/A Bodycraft) v Customs and Excise VDT 23-Apr-2004
VDT INPUT TAX – whether claim made in 2000 for input tax for 1989 and 1990 for which no tax invoice was issued was part of a claim made in 1993 – no – whether the 2000 claim was prevented by the 3 year cap . .
Appeal from – Fleming T/A Bodycraft v Commisioners of Customs and Excise ChD 25-Feb-2005
Appeal against dismissal of the Appellant’s appeal from the decision of the Commissioners of Customs and Excise to refuse to repay to the Appellant input tax on three new Aston Martin motor cars out of a batch of thirteen such cars purchased by the . .

Cited by:

Cited – 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: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238522

Revenue and Customs v IDT Card Services Ireland Ltd: CA 27 Jan 2006

Under the Marleasing principle, or principle of conforming interpretation, the domestic court of a member state must interpret its national law so far as possible in the light of the wording and purpose of the Directive in question. However this duty is limited and runs ‘so far as is possible’; any reading down must ‘go with the grain of the legislation’ as drafted. There is however little difference between the Court’s duty under the Marleasing principle and its duty under section 3 of the Human Rights Act 1998 to interpret domestic legislation as far as possible in a manner which is compatible with Convention rights under the European Convention on Human Rights.

Judges:

Arden, Pill, Latham LJJ

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 29, [2006] STC 1252

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Human Rights Act 199 3, European Convention on Human Rights

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Marleasing SA v La Comercial Internacional de Alimentacion SA ECJ 13-Nov-1990
Sympathetic construction of national legislation
LMA OVIEDO sought a declaration that the contracts setting up Commercial International were void (a nullity) since they had been drawn up in order to defraud creditors. Commercial International relied on an EC . .
Appeal from – IDT Card Services Ireland Ltd, Regina (on the Application of) v HM Customs and Excise Admn 21-Dec-2004
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Vibixa Ltd, Polestar Jowetts Ltd v Komori UK Ltd and Another, Spectral Technology Ltd CA 9-May-2006
The claimants sought damages for damage to property alleging breach of statutory duty. The defendant said that the regulations were made under European not English law, and that the Secretary of State did not have power to make regulations under the . .
Cited – It’s A Wrap (UK) Ltd v Gula and Another CA 11-May-2006
The company was said to have paid dividends unlawfully, in that the directors who were the shareholders had paid themselves dividends knowing that the company had not earned enough to pay them.
Held: Where shareholders had knowledge of the . .
Cited – English v Thomas Sanderson Ltd CA 19-Dec-2008
The claimant appealed dismissal of his claim for harrassment and sex discrimination. Though heterosexual, he had been subject to persistent jokes that he was homosexual. The court first asked whether the alleged conduct was ‘on the grounds of sexual . .
Cited – Twentieth Century Fox Film Corp and Others v British Telecommunications Plc ChD 28-Jul-2011
The claimant rights holders sought an order to require the defendant broadband internet provider to deny access to its users to websites which were said to facilitate the distribution of infringing copies of their films. An earlier judgment had . .
Cited – Forensic Telecommunications Services Ltd v West Yorkshire Police and Another ChD 9-Nov-2011
The claimant alleged infringement by the defendant of assorted intellectual property rights in its database. It provided systems for recovering materials deleted from Nokia mobile phones.
Held: ‘the present case is concerned with a collection . .
Cited – The Newspaper Licensing Agency Ltd and Others v Meltwater Holding Bv and Others ChD 26-Nov-2010
The claimant newspapers complained of the spidering of the web-sites and redistribution of the materials collected by the defendants to its subscribers. The defendants including the Public Relations Consultants Association (PRCA) denied that they . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 05 July 2022; Ref: scu.238207

Commission v Sweden: ECJ 21 Apr 2015

ECJ Judgment – Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Value added tax – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 132(1)(a) and 135(1)(h) – Exemptions – Public postal services – Postage stamps – Directive 97/67/CE

Citations:

C-114/14, [2015] EUECJ C-114/14, ECLI:EU:C:2015:249

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.545876

Commission v Sweden: ECJ 25 Apr 2013

ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Taxation – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 11 – National legislation restricting the possibility of forming a group of persons which can be regarded as a single taxable person for VAT purposes to undertakings in the financial and insurance sector

Judges:

L Bay Larsen P

Citations:

[2013] EUECJ C-480/10, C-480/10

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2006/112/EC 11

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Commission v Sweden ECJ 27-Nov-2012
ECJ Opinion – VAT – Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC – National legislation restricting VAT group registration to providers of financial and insurance services – Compatibility with European Union VAT law . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.503504

Commission v Sweden: ECJ 27 Nov 2012

ECJ Opinion – VAT – Article 11 of Directive 2006/112/EC – National legislation restricting VAT group registration to providers of financial and insurance services – Compatibility with European Union VAT law

Judges:

Jaaskinen AG

Citations:

C-480/10, [2012] EUECJ C-480/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Commission v Sweden ECJ 25-Apr-2013
ECJ Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Taxation – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 11 – National legislation restricting the possibility of forming a group of persons which can be regarded as a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.467077

Brunel Motor Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs and Another: ChD 24 Jan 2008

Appeal by Brunel Motor Company Ltd in Administrative Receivership against a decision to the effect that certain credit notes issued by the Second Respondent to the Appellant were valid for VAT purposes thus obliging the Appellant to repay to the First Respondent VAT shown on those credit notes. The Appellant previously recovered that VAT as input tax.

Judges:

Peter Smith J

Citations:

[2008] EWHC 74 (Ch), [2008] STI 184, [2008] STC 1058, [2008] BVC 286, [2008] BTC 5161

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.263850

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 member state. A’s sale to B is zero-rated in A’s member state’.
‘According to article 28c (A) (a) of the Sixth Directive, the supply of goods to an operator in another member state is exempted from VAT. In the wording of the United Kingdom Value Added Tax Act 1994, the supply is ‘zero-rated’. B should declare the purchase and pay acquisition tax in its own member state and on the premise that it is intending to use those goods in order to make onward taxable supply, then claim credit for the same amount as input tax. Usually, if it is a participant in a carousel fraud, it does neither. B then sells the goods to another VAT-registered trader C, in its own member state, charging and receiving VAT on the consideration. However, it fails to account to the tax authorities for that VAT and effectively disappears; it becomes what the commissioners refer to as a ‘missing trader’. Nevertheless, at the time of making its sale to C, while it is still registered for VAT and before the commissioners are aware that it is or might become a missing trader and had been able to intervene . . it provides a VAT invoice to C, which claims the VAT it has paid to B as input tax. C (to whom the commissioners refer as a ‘broker’) then sells the goods to registered trader in another member state: the hallmark of the simplest fraud is that this purchaser is A, and it is this circularity which gives rise to the ‘carousel fraud’. C has an input tax to claim but, because its sale to A is zero-rated in C’s own member state is not required to account for any output tax. As noted above, the supply of goods to an operator in another member state is exempted from VAT. The vendor is entitled to recover input tax pursuant to article 17(2) (d) of the Sixth Directive as inserted by article 28f(1) thereof. The result, if the fraud is successful is that B has received, but not accounted for the VAT which the tax authorities must pay to C . . . The goods are no more than a token, necessary to lend verisimilitude to the transactions . . A (at least, if it is participant in the fraud) likewise has no genuine business motive in buying back that which it has sold.’

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18100

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – 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 . .
Adopted – 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 . .
Adopted – 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 . .
Adopted – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238116

Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 5 Dec 2005

VDT EXEMPTION – supply by The Boots Company plc to the Appellant in connection with a co-branded card scheme under which payment was based on the use of the card – whether exempt as part of the supply of intermediation services or whether taxable as being for the right to participate in the scheme – the former – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19364

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238103

London Institute (Now Known As the University of the Arts, London) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 6 Dec 2005

Value Added Tax – Claim for input tax under-declared – Claim made on 30 January 2001 for input tax under-claimed 1989-1996 – Legislation introducing limitation period for making claims had no provision for transitional relief – Effect on claim – Whether reasonable period sufficient for making claim – Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, SI 1995/2518, Reg. 29 (1A) – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19362

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238095

F2 Leisure Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 4 Oct 2005

VDT VAT – SECURITY – Protection of Revenue – Company Directors involved in failed companies in the same business and operating from the same address as the Appellant companies- one of the Appellant companies poor VAT compliance record – downturn in business and threat to jobs not relevant – Appellants engaged in cash business VAT collected but not paid – threat to jobs due to Appellants’ actions not the imposition of security – Whether Respondents’ actions in requiring a security reasonable – Yes – Appeal dismissed – VAT ACT 1994 Schedule 11 p 4(1)

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19253

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238001

Premier Leisure (Events) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 2 Nov 2005

VDT VAT – PENALTIES – default surcharge – time-to-pay agreement for payment of tax by instalments – surcharge imposed in respect of unpaid instalments – liability to surcharge not fully spelt out in agreement and not appreciated by taxpayer – otherwise all the tax would probably have been paid by the due date – reasonable excuse for late payment established – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19320

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238059

Pemberton and Another (T/A the Sandwich Box Plus) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 27 Oct 2005

VDT REGISTRATION – Artificial separation of two businesses – one Appellant carrying on business of a takeaway sandwich bar – Appellant and wife carrying on an outside catering business from the same premises – whether businesses artificially separated and liable to be registered for VAT as a single business – characteristics of separate businesses – VATA 1994 Schedule 1 paras 1A, 2 – EC Sixth Dir. Art 4.4 – Appeal allowed.

Judges:

Rodney P Huggins (Chairman)

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19307

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238018

Reed Leisure Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 30 Nov 2005

VDT VAT – SECURITY – Protection of Revenue – company directors involved in another company which had gone into liquidation owing considerable sums in VAT – the Appellant had a poor record of VAT compliance and payment including a large VAT debt – the Appellant used its VAT revenues to ease its cash flow difficulties – the Appellant had taken steps to remedy its compliance record after the issue of the Notice for Security – whether Respondents’ actions in requiring a security reasonable – yes – appeal dismissed – VAT ACT 1994 Schedule 11 p 4(1)

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19356

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238062

A and T Systems Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 30 Nov 2005

VDT VAT – SECURITY- Protection of Revenue -Company Director involved in other companies which had poor records of VAT compliance – three of the companies owed considerable sums in VAT – two of which had gone into liquidation – the Appellant company in the same business as the other companies with the same trading address as the two previous companies owned by the director – Appellant company not yet trading – Appellant company set up for a specific contract – the steps taken by the Appellant to minimise financial risk occurred after the issue of the Notice for Security – not relevant to the reasonableness of the decision – Whether Respondents’ actions in requiring a security reasonable – Yes – Appeal dismissed- VAT ACT 1994 Schedule 11 p 4(1).

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19410

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238029

Hooper v Revenue and Customs: VDT 6 Oct 2005

VDT Value added tax – input tax – business purpose – whether input tax on car registration number purchased from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency recoverable – Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 24 – decision on the facts – yes

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19276

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238005

Eunetics Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 24 Oct 2005

VDT SECURITY – Notice of requirement – Appellant’s quarterly returns outstanding – Appellant’s outstanding debt due to Commissioners – Associated company deregistered owing amount to Commissioners – Whether requirement reasonable – Yes – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19303

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238000

United Biscuits (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 2 Nov 2005

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – zero-rating – food – potato crisps sold with a dip – VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 1, Excepted Item 5 – whether crisps ‘packaged for consumption without further preparation’ – no further preparation necessary – crisps component of product standard-rated – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19319

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238070