Sole-Mizo (Judgment): ECJ 23 Apr 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112 / EC – Right to deduct input tax – Reimbursement of excess VAT – Late reimbursement – Calculation of interest – Procedures for granting of interest due due to the unavailability of excess deductible VAT retained in violation of Union law and of interest due due to the delay of the tax administration in paying an amount due – Principles effectiveness and equivalence

Citations:

C-13/18, [2020] EUECJ C-13/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:292, [2019] EUECJ C-13/18_O

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.660153

Ivan Yanev v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Application for Permission To Make A Late Appeal): FTTTx 29 Oct 2019

VAT – application for permission to make a late appeal – assessment for pounds 1.86m – Appellant in prison and then deported to Bulgaria – HMRC obtaining restraint order over Bulgarian apartment – contemporaneous evidence that appeal being considered soon after issuance of assessment – five year delay — Martland applied – merits considered but found to be weak – application refused

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 653 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.644035

Chmiel v Revenue and Customs (Vat – Registration : Compulsory – Company ‘Liable But No Longer Liable’): FTTTx 25 Apr 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX – Appellant a director of limited company – Company ‘liable but no longer liable’ (LNLL) to be registered for VAT – Personal Liability Notice issued to the Appellant – The Appellant accepted that his conduct was careless – Was the failure to register for VAT deliberate? – Yes – Was this attributable to the Appellant? – Yes – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 273 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.637836

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

Citations:

[2008] EUECJ C-484/06, C-484/06

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

OpinionKoninklijke 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 01 November 2022; Ref: scu.460497

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Croydon Hotel and Leisure Co Ltd: CA 8 Aug 1996

The limitation period on recovery by Commissioners runs from date of return, not the accounting period.

Citations:

Times 08-Aug-1996, [1996] STC CA 1105

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1983 Sch 7 para 4(5)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Croydon Hotel and Leisure Company Ltd QBD 1-Jun-1995
Assessment to be for time entitlement to input arose, not period when deducted. . .

Cited by:

Appealed toCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Croydon Hotel and Leisure Company Ltd QBD 1-Jun-1995
Assessment to be for time entitlement to input arose, not period when deducted. . .
CitedDFS Furniture Company Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 16-Mar-2004
The taxpayers said that the Commissioners’ assessment to VAT was out of time, and appealed a finding that it was not. They said that time should run from the point at which the Commissioners knew the facts upon which the assessment was based. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.79377

Skin Rich Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax – Whether Botox and Other Injectable Treatments and Nail Fungus Treatments Are Exempt): FTTTx 6 Aug 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX – whether Botox and other injectable treatments and nail fungus treatments are exempt under Group 7 of Schedule 9 – items 1, 2 and 4 considered – held that injectable treatments were not for the primary purpose of protecting, restoring or maintaining health and thus not ‘medical care’ – held that permission granted by local council for D1 use insufficient to constitute ‘state-regulated’ – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 514 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.641355

Koolmove Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Input Tax : Pre-Registration Purchases): FTTTx 2 Aug 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – pre-incorporation legal expenses – regulation 111 Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 – legal costs incurred in defence of proceedings against individual who subsequently incorporated and became director of appellant company – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 502 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.641331

Customs and Excise v British Telecommunications Plc: CA 8 May 1996

Appeal by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise from a judgment of Mr. Justice Dyson when he dismissed an appeal by the taxpayer, British Telecommunications Plc (‘BT’), from a decision of a Value Added Tax Tribunal which discharged an assessment to output tax. The appeal raises a question of general importance both in the United Kingdom and in other Member States on the common system of value added tax upon which there is as yet no decision of the European Court of Justice.
The case is concerned with the liability to output tax of a taxable trader who makes continuous supplies of goods or services and invoices and receives payment from customers at periodic intervals in the course of a continuing contractual relationship with the customer. Such arrangements are commonplace, particularly in relation to the supply of utilities, though they are not confined to such cases.

Judges:

Nourse, Millett, Tucker LJJ

Citations:

[1996] STC 818, [1996] EWHC 384 (QB)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.465693

CTT – Correios De Portugal (VAT – Deduction of Input Tax – Mixed Taxable Person – Judgment): ECJ 30 Apr 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Deduction of input tax – Article 173 – Mixed taxable person – Deduction methods – Pro rata method – Deduction on the basis of actual use – Article 184 to Article 186 – Adjustment of deductions – Change in the factors used to determine the amount to be deducted – Output transaction incorrectly regarded as VAT-exempt – National measure prohibiting a change in the deduction method for years that have already elapsed – Limitation period – Principles of fiscal neutrality, legal certainty, effectiveness, and proportionality

Citations:

C-661/18, [2020] EUECJ C-661/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:335

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.660113

Agrobet CZ (Judgment): ECJ 14 May 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112 / EC – Deduction of input VAT paid – Excess of VAT – Withholding of excess following the opening of a tax audit procedure – Request for restitution of the part of the surplus relating to transactions not covered by this procedure – Refusal of the tax administration

Citations:

C-446/18, [2020] EUECJ C-446/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:369, [2019] EUECJ C-446/18_O

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 31 October 2022; Ref: scu.660165

Field Opportunities Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax – Denial of Relief for Input Tax): FTTTx 5 Aug 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX – denial of relief for input tax on the basis that the Appellant knew or should have known that the supplies in question were connected to the fraudulent evasion of VAT – conclusion that, on the balance of probabilities, the Appellant did not know, but should have known, of that connection – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 0531 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.641316

Claims Advisory Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Insurance and Reinsurance Transactions): FTTTx 6 Aug 2019

Article 135(1)(a) of the Principal VAT Directive (2006/112/EC). Insurance and reinsurance transactions, including related services performed by insurance brokers and insurance agents exempt. Whether supply of Appellant’s services amounted to insurance transactions and/ or were related to an insurance transaction. Claims for recovery of compensation for mis-sold Payment Protection Insurance. Card Protection Plan Ltd v C and E Comrs (Case C-349/96) [1999] STC 270 applied. Lubbock Fine v HMRC [1994] STC 10 considered and distinguished. Re Forsakringsaktiebolaget Skandia (publ) (Case C – 240/99) [2001] STC 754 and InsuranceWide.com Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2010] EWCA Civ 422, [2010] STC 1572 applied. Century Life [2001] STC 38 considered distinguished.
Held: Appellant was supplying the services of assisting its customers with the making of claims for compensation and not the termination of insurance relationships and was not providing insurance transactions or services related to insurance contracts.

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 512 (TC), [2020] SFTD 7

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.641313

Lebara Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: ECJ 8 Dec 2011

ECJ Opinion – Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2 – Article 6(4) – Supply of services -Persons to whom services are supplied – Telecommunications services – Prepaid phonecards containing information facilitating access to international telephone calls – Marketing phonecards through distributors – Rules governing the imposition of VAT – Commission agent – Distribution service – Single supply

Judges:

Jaaskinen AG

Citations:

C-520/10, [2011] EUECJ C-520/10

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Reference FromLebara Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 14-Oct-2010
Reference to Europe. . .

Cited by:

OpinionLebara Ltd v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs ECJ 3-May-2012
ECJ Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2 – Supply of services for consideration – Telecommunications services – Prepaid phonecards displaying information for making international calls – Marketing through a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 28 October 2022; Ref: scu.459561

Paymex Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 26 May 2011

VAT – supplies in connection with establishment and supervision of consumer Individual Voluntary Arrangements (IVAs) – whether exempt supplies of financial services – art 135(1)(d), Principal VAT Directive and Item 5, Group 5, Sch 9, VATA 1994

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 350 (TC), [2011] SFTD 1028, [2011] STI 1952

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.443067

Trustees of the Nell Gwynn House Maintenance Fund v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 1996

Judges:

Sir Christopher Slade, Swinton Thomas LJ and Butler Sloss LJ

Citations:

[1996] STC 310

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromTrustees of the Nell Gwynn House Maintenance Fund v Commissioners of Customs and Excise QBD 31-Oct-1994
Trustees of flats were liable to VAT on maintenance staff wages. The provision of their services was not an exempt supply. . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromNell Gwynn House Maintenance Fund v Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 15-Dec-1998
Trustees who managed a group of apartments argued that they did not themselves provide staff services to the tenants, but rather arranged for the staff to provide services to them.
Held: The contract providing cleaning and other services, by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.194313

Sargent v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 23 Feb 1995

Property company receiver liable to pay VAT collected on rents to Commissioners.

Citations:

Times 23-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 01-May-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromSargent v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 18-Nov-1993
VAT in rents received by receiver was payable to customs. The receiver is a VAT taxable person even if he is appointed under a floating charge. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, VAT, Landlord and tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.89008

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Le Rififi Ltd: CA 14 Dec 1994

One paper assessment covering several tax periods need always not be treated as just one assessment. This was a question of fact to be decided on the particular circumstances.

Citations:

Times 14-Dec-1994, Gazette 15-Feb-1995

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985 22(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed fromCommissioners of Customs and Excise v Le Rififi Ltd QBD 2-Aug-1993
One assessment covering numerous accounting periods constitutes a single global assessment. If any part of a global VAT assessment is time barred, then the whole assessment fails. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Limitation

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.79334

Tower Resources Plc v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Oil Exploration and Production In Sub-Saharan Africa): FTTTx 8 Jul 2019

VAT – Oil exploration and production in sub-Saharan Africa – Activities undertaken through local subsidiaries – Provision of technical services by Plc – Financed through additions to intercompany loans – Whether supply for consideration – Whether supply made in the course of economic activity – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 442 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.641302

Westland Horticulture Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Value Added Tax): FTTTx 25 Jul 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX – Value Added Tax Act 1994, section 30(2) and Group 1 of Schedule 8 – zero-rating – whether a lawn repair product is seed for growing grass for animal feed – no – the product is standard-rated – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 480 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.641303

Franck (VAT – Exemptions – Definitions of ‘Granting of Credit’ and ‘Other Negotiable Instruments’ – Judgment): ECJ 17 Dec 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Exemptions – Article 135(1)(b) and (d) – Definitions of ‘granting of credit’ and ‘other negotiable instruments’ – Complex transactions – Principal supply – Provision of funds in return for payment – Transfer of a bill of exchange to a factoring company and the money obtained to the issuer of the bill of exchange

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2020:1049, C-801/19, [2020] EUECJ C-801/19

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.660719

Eat Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Zero-Rating : Food, Etc): FTTTx 28 Jan 2019

VAT – zero-rating – hot take-away food – grilled ciabatta rolls and breakfast muffins – rolls supplied to Appellant partly baked – baking finished at retail outlet – was food ‘hot’ – yes – appeal dismissed – Group 1, Schedule 8 VAT Act 1994

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 67 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 27 October 2022; Ref: scu.635663

Gus Merchandise Corporation Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 24 Oct 1994

The Commissioners’ general tax management powers include a power to enter into a binding contract with taxpayers as to the method of calculation of Excess VAT paid on sales to agents was not recoverable since there was a binding agreement.

Citations:

Ind Summary 24-Oct-1994, [1995] STC 279

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal fromGus Merchandise Corporation Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise QBD 25-Oct-1993
A taxpayer accepting the Scheme H calculation basis cannot reclaim overpayments. . .

Cited by:

CitedOxfam 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

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.81093

Bophuthatswana National Commercial Corporation v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 13 Sep 1993

The services of a company representing an unrecognized nation may be chargeable. The court must consider ‘what is the true and substantial nature of the consideration given for the payment’.

Judges:

Nolan LJ

Citations:

Ind Summary 13-Sep-1993

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedBritish United Provident Association Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; etc Admn 23-Jan-1997
In determining whether what would otherwise be two supplies should be regarded as a single supply the court has to ask itself whether one element is an ‘integral part’ of the other, or is ‘ancillary’ or ‘incidental’ to the other; or (in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.78490

Yeshivas Lubavitch Manchester v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Zero-Rating): FTTTx 1 Jul 2019

VAT – Zero-rating – Group 5 Sch 8 VATA 1994 – Construction -whether an ‘extension’ or an ‘annexe’ to existing building – whether capable of functioning independently – whether intended for use otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 427 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.641305

Clydesdale Bank Plc v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : The Issue of A Bank Note): FTTTx 6 Jun 2019

VAT – ‘the issue of a bank note’ – Item 1, Group 11, Sch 8 VATA – distinction with authorised issuing banks and others – distinction with Bank of England – Bank Notes (Scotland) Act 1845 – Banking Act 2009 – HMRC policy – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 419 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.641238

Else Refining and Recycling Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Jul 2012

VALUE ADDED TAX – MTIC – HMRC’s refusal to repay VAT on supplies connected with fraudulent VAT evasion – connection conceded by the appellant – only issues were whether the appellant knew or should have known of the connection – Axel Kittel v Belgian State and Mobilx v Commissioners for HMRC considered – held the appellant did not actually know of the connection, but it should have known of it because the only reasonable explanation for the circumstances in which the supplies took place was that the supplies were connected with fraudulent VAT evasion – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 470 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

CitedAxel Kittel v Belgian State; Belgian State v Recolta Recycling SPRL ECJ 6-Jul-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Deduction of input tax – ‘Carousel’ fraud – Contract of sale incurably void under domestic law.
The right of a taxpayer to deduct Input Tax may be refused if: ‘it is ascertained, . .
CitedMobilx Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same and similar CA 12-May-2010
Each company sought repayment of input VAT. HMRC refused, saying that the transactions were the end-product of a fraud on it, and that even if the taxpayer did not know that a fraud was involved, it should have been aware that one was and acted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 26 October 2022; Ref: scu.466032

Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 17 Dec 2008

VDT VAT – Input tax – MTIC fraud – whether tax loss – yes – attributable to fraudulent evasion of VAT – yes – contra-trading – whether Appellant’s purchases connected – yes – whether Appellant should have known of the fraud – yes – inadequacy of enquiries – nature of evidence to show whether Appellant should have known – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20901

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See AlsoBlue Sphere Global Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 29-May-2008
VDT PRACTICE – MTIC appeal – Application to amend Statement of Case to allege fraud – Earlier direction for any allegation of fraud to be made within specified time – No allegation then made – Appeal listed for 5 . .

Cited by:

Appeal fromBlue Sphere Global Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 22-May-2009
. .
At VDTMobilx Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs; Blue Sphere Global Ltd v Same and similar CA 12-May-2010
Each company sought repayment of input VAT. HMRC refused, saying that the transactions were the end-product of a fraud on it, and that even if the taxpayer did not know that a fraud was involved, it should have been aware that one was and acted . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.301872

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v First National Bank of Chicago: ECJ 14 Jul 1998

The Bank dealt in foreign exchange, not charging a commission, but relying on the profit it made over a period between the prices at which respectively it bought and sold the currency. The Bank contended that the foreign exchange transactions were subject to VAT as supplies effected for a consideration and that the value of the consideration was the full value of the currency received in exchange for that provided by the Bank. The European Court held that the supply of foreign currency being legal tender was not the supply of tangible property, but of a service. The supply of foreign currencies in the way described was the provision of a service for consideration being the difference between what it paid and what it received for the currency. The currencies received by the Bank were not the remuneration it received. That consisted in what the Bank could keep for itself, calculated as the net result of all transactions over a given period of time. Trading in foreign currencies where no charge was made, but the company relied upon the spread did constitute provision of taxable supplies. Amount of consideration was the total spread of transactions over a period of time
Europa Foreign exchange transactions, performed even without commission or direct fees, are supplies of services provided in return for consideration, that is to say supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes. More particularly, transactions between parties for the purchase by one party of an agreed amount in one currency against the sale by it to the other party of an agreed amount in another currency, both such amounts being deliverable on the same value date, and in respect of which transactions the parties have agreed (whether orally, electronically or in writing) the currencies involved, the amounts of such currencies to be purchased and sold, which party will purchase which currency and the value date, constitute supplies of services effected for consideration within the meaning of Article 2(1) of the Sixth Directive.
2 Article 11A(1)(a) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes must be construed as meaning that, in foreign exchange transactions in which no fees or commission are calculated with regard to certain specific transactions, the taxable amount is the overall result of the transactions of the supplier of the services over a given period of time. Article 11A(1)(a) of the Sixth Directive provides that the taxable amount is, in respect of supplies of services, that which constitutes the consideration which has been or is to be obtained by the supplier from the purchaser for such supplies. Determining the consideration comes down to determining what the bank in question receives for foreign exchange transactions, that is to say the remuneration on foreign exchange transactions which it can actually take for itself.

Citations:

Times 20-Jul-1998, C-172/96, [1998] EUECJ C-172/96

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC May 1977

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

CitedNell Gwynn House Maintenance Fund v Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 15-Dec-1998
Trustees who managed a group of apartments argued that they did not themselves provide staff services to the tenants, but rather arranged for the staff to provide services to them.
Held: The contract providing cleaning and other services, by a . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.161869

Regina v Stanley: CACD 8 Dec 1998

A count on an indictment alleging VAT offences which included charges both of understating outputs and making false input claims was defective in not allowing a jury to say clearly of which offence the accused was guilty. ‘the Court of Appeal had given a wide meaning to the word ‘defective’ in section 5(1) so as to render indictments capable of deciding the issue that properly should be determined between the Crown, on the one hand, and the defendant on the other’.

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-1998

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 72(8), Indictments Act 1915 5(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedRegina v Alibhai and Others CACD 30-Mar-2004
The defendants appealed against their convictions for conspiracy to manufacture and distribute counterfeit Microsoft products. They said that inadequate disclosure had been provided by Microsoft. The principal witness was a participating informant . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.88113

Regina v Dealy: CACD 13 Dec 1994

Evasion of VAT does not require proof of intent to permanently deprive, ‘evasion’ can consist in a deferment, rather than permanent evasion, of a liability.

Citations:

Times 13-Dec-1994, [1995] STC 217

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1983 39(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedZen Internet Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 5-Apr-2004
VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – dishonest evasion – VATA s 60 – appellant paying six successive centrally-issued assessments for less than the true liability – inadequate attempts to put accounting records in order – . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.86522

Herst (Judgment): ECJ 23 Apr 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112 / EC – Article 2 (1) (b) – Intra-Community acquisition of goods – Article 20 – Obtaining the power to dispose of goods as an owner – Chain purchase and resale of goods with a single intra-community transport – Possibility of taking decisions likely to affect the legal situation of the good – Charging of transport – Transport under excise duty suspension regime – Effect over time of interpretation stops

Citations:

C-401/18, [2020] EUECJ C-401/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:295, [2019] EUECJ C-401/18_O

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.660126

Golfclub Schloss Igling (Judgment): ECJ 10 Dec 2020

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112 / EC – Article 132, paragraph 1, sub m) – Exemption of ‘certain supplies of services having a close link with the practice of sport or physical education ‘- Direct effect – Concept of’ non-profit organizations ‘

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2020:1013, C-488/18, [2020] EUECJ C-488/18, [2019] EUECJ C-488/18_O

Links:

Bailii, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.660724

Luke v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Value Added Tax – Zero Rating – Recovery of Tax): FTTTx 31 Jul 2019

Value Added Tax – zero rating – recovery of tax – taxpayer granted planning permission for construction of new dwelling and detached garaging – first floor of garage includes sitting/dining area with kitchen units, two bedrooms and bathroom – planning permission has condition that accommodation on first floor of garage shall be brought into ancillary use solely for purposes incidental to enjoyment of dwelling house – whether planning permission condition prohibits separate use or disposal of building – VAT Act 1994, s 35(4), Schedule 8 Group 5 Note 2(c) – appeal allowed – bathroom cabinets screwed to wall with lights attached to mains are not fittings and do not qualify for VAT refund

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 496 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641290

Williams v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Supply : Taxi Services for Account Customers): FTTTx 6 Feb 2019

VAT – Taxi services for account customers – whether VATable supply by firm – whether firm acted as principal or agent – whether consideration received by firm or driver

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 79 (TC), [2019] SFTD 703, [2019] STI 522, [2019] LLR 658

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.641232

Baig (T/A Zara Trading Company) v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Appeals : Entertainment of Appeal): FTTTx 19 Feb 2019

Procedure – application to reinstate appeal out of time – Rule 17 FTT Rules- whether application precluded by section 85(4)Value Added Tax Act 1994 – yes – whether if not so precluded appeal should be reinstated – no

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 127 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.635682

Adullam Homes Housing Association Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Vat – Input Tax : Business Purposes): FTTTx 3 Nov 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – housing and support provider – whether there was a direct and immediate link between the cost to the Appellant of accommodation costs and the Appellant’s taxable supply – yes – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2019] STI 225, [2019] UKFTT 12 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632379

Bard Electrics Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Penalties : Default Surcharge): FTTTx 28 Feb 2019

VAT default surcharge – insufficiency of funds caused by appellant’s customer not making payment under contract on time – no evidence provided to show that the insufficiency of funds was unavoidable and unforeseeable – whether reasonable excuse – on the facts, no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 151 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.635684

Mainpay Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Procedure : Other): FTTTx 25 Sep 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – Procedure – Application by appellant to postpone – Application by HMRC to strike out on basis that no reasonable prospect of success because none of the arguments in appellant skeleton served late were in original grounds of appeal and no application made to amend the grounds – appellant seeking to show that one original ground was encompassed by argument in skeleton – appeal struck out.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 552 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632311

Ballards of Finchley Plc v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Other): FTTTx 15 Oct 2018

Application to amend grounds of appeal – Fleming claims for repayment of overpaid output tax from 1973 to 1999 – whether one claim or many – whether claims completed by payment and not amendable – whether claims subject to Rule 18.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 604 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632330

Roy Wilson Cars v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Input Tax : Other): FTTTx 20 Aug 2018

VAT – MTIC – VAT qualifying second hand cars – denial of input tax in the sum of pounds 116,582.36 – the appellant did not dispute that there was a tax loss, that the tax loss resulted from fraudulent evasion of VAT and that the transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT- whether or not the appellant knew that the transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT – no – whether or not the appellant should have known that the transactions were connected with the fraudulent evasion of VAT – yes – appeal in respect of pounds 116,582.36 dismissed – denial of input tax in the sum of pounds 2,833.33 – HMRC accepted that this was properly claimed – appeal in respect of pounds 2,833.33 allowed.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 487 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632274

Murphy (T/A Ebuzz) v Revenue and Customs (VAT : Sales Made To The Republic of Ireland): FTTTx 6 Sep 2018

VAT – assessment under s 73 VATA 1994 – sales made to the Republic of Ireland – whether a VAT registered trader in an EC Member State – whether eligible to be zero-rated – Regulation 134 of the VAT Regulations 1995 – Public Notice 725 certain paragraphs with the force of law – requisite evidence for zero-rating intra-community sales – whether burden of proof met – fairness argument on tax symmetry – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 503 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632315

Roman Catholic Diocese of Westminister v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Zero-Rating : Building Work): FTTTx 29 Aug 2018

VAT – Zero-rating – Group 5 sch 8 VATA 1994 – Construction – Works to church – whether alteration, enlargement or extension of existing building – whether annexe – whether capable of functioning independently

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 522 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.632272

Corina-Hrisi Tulica v Agentia Nationala De Administrare Fiscala: ECJ 7 Nov 2013

ECJ Taxation – VAT – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 73 and 78 – Immovable property transactions carried out by natural persons – Classification of those transactions as taxable – Determination of the VAT owing when the parties have made no provision for it at the time of conclusion of the contract – Question as to whether or not the vendor may recover the VAT from the purchaser – Consequences

Citations:

C-249/12, [2013] EUECJ C-249/12

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 25 October 2022; Ref: scu.517556

AES-3C Maritza East 1 Eood v Direktor Na Direktsia: ECJ 18 Jul 2013

ECJ Value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 168(a) and 176 – Right to deduction – Expenditure related to the purchase of goods and the supply of services for staff – Staff supplied to the taxable persons claiming the right to deduction but employed by another taxable person

Judges:

M. Berger, P

Citations:

C-124/12, [2013] EUECJ C-124/12

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2006/112/EC 168(a) 176

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.513401

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v DFS Furniture Company Plc: CA 6 Dec 2002

Judges:

Lord Justice Laws, Lord Justice Keene, Lord Justice Mummery

Citations:

[2002] EWCA Civ 1708, [2003] STC 1

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedMatalan Retail Ltd v Revenue and Customs ChD 5-Aug-2009
The taxpayer imported swimwear for sale. The respondent had incorrectly indicated that such swimwear had one classification. The claimant sought to prevent the respondent reclassifying the goods, saying that they had made given binding tariff . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Taxes Management

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.178458

Hard Hat Logistics Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Input Tax : Other): FTTTx 13 Jun 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – denial of right to deduct on grounds that the Appellant knew or should have known that the transactions were part of fraud by others – alleged MTIC – whether shown that the Appellant’s transactions connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT – yes – whether Appellant knew or should have known of fraud – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 386 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.641244

General Distribution and Storage Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Transfer of A Leasehold Property To Purchaser): FTTTx 30 Aug 2019

VAT – transfer of a leasehold property to purchaser – prior sale by that purchaser – whether transfer of a going concern – Zita and Intelligent Managed Services considered and applied – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 559 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.641318

Hussain v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Administration : Collection and Enforcement): FTTTx 12 Aug 2019

VALUE ADDED TAX DVOIP and Electronic Communication Services – Penalty imposed on company in relation to inaccuracies in three successive quarterly VAT returns – Company entered liquidation – Personal Liability Notice for 100% of the Company’s liability issued to Appellant sole director D Schedule 24 Paragraph 19 Finance Act 2007 D Did the Company know or have reason to suspect that the transactions were connected to fraud? – Yes – Were the inaccuracies attributable to deliberate conduct of the Appellant director? – Yes, but only in relation to the last two periods – Comments on the need to consider special reduction in relation to a Personal Liability Notice – Appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 529 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.641327

Brown (T/A Monkey Pine) v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Penalties : Default Surcharge): FTTTx 7 Jun 2019

VAT default surcharge – temporary cash flow shortage – whether reasonable excuse for late payment – no – Appellant previously paid electronically and allowed an additional seven days – changed to making payment by cheque but unaware that he would no longer be entitled to additional seven days whether reasonable excuse – no – Appellant’s assertion that he had not been notified of earlier defaults not accepted – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 361 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.638526

Ulster Metals Refining Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Appeals : Applications Generally): FTTTx 13 Jun 2019

PROCEDURE – VALUE ADDED TAX – Decision by FTT dismissing the Appellant’s appeal upheld by UT but successfully appealed to Court of Appeal of Northern Ireland – Court of Appeal ordered remission to a differently constituted panel of the FTT for rehearing – Applications to strike out parts of HMRC’s Further Amended Statement of Case and/or bar HMRC from advancing evidence of the facts and matters therein – Discussion of the effect of the Court of Appeal’s order on the scope of the rehearing – Whether res judicata or issue estoppel? – No – Whether an abuse of process? – No – Application dismissed

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 385 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.641252

The Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Partial Exemption): FTTTx 24 May 2019

VAT – Partial exemption – Standard method override – Production costs accepted as ‘residual’ – Whether production costs have a direct and immediate link to catering and other taxable supplies – Whether ‘break in chain’ or separate supplies – Appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 329 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.638511

The Wellcome Trust Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Supply : Place of): FTTTx 10 Oct 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – place of supply of services – reverse charge – consideration of Articles 43 and 44 of the Principle VAT Directive – whether or not taxpayer engaged in non-economic business activity required to account for VAT under reverse charge mechanism — held not

Citations:

[2019] SFTD 289, [2018] STI 1926, [2018] UKFTT 599 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.632375

Chameleon Technology (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Penalties : Default Surcharge): FTTTx 12 Oct 2018

VAT default surcharge – cash flow shortage – logistical problems caused delays in delivery of goods to customers – whether reasonable excuse for late payment – on the facts, yes – whether a request for time to pay had been considered by HMRC – no – whether reasonable excuse – yes – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 603 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.632334

Richard Baldwin Motorhomes v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Zero-Rating : Drugs, Medicines, Aids for The Handicapped): FTTTx 21 Sep 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – Zero Rating – vehicles adapted for the carrying of a wheelchair – whether customers ‘usually wheelchair users’ – whether vehicle includes features whose ‘design’ is such that their ‘sole purpose’ is to allow a wheelchair to be carried.

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 550 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.632319

Millennium Energy Trading Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Scrap Metal Transactions): FTTTx 24 Oct 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – scrap metal transactions undertaken by appellant -denial of input tax – the appellant did not dispute that there was a tax loss, that the tax loss resulted from fraudulent evasion of VAT and that the transactions were connected with fraudulent evasion of VAT – did the appellant know or should it have known that the transactions were so connected – yes – appeal dismissed – decision by HMRC to deregister appellant for VAT – whether correct on basis that registration probably connected to fraud – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 633 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.632356

Taylors Service Centres v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Other): FTTTx 13 Aug 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – denial of zero-rating on car sales to the Republic of Ireland on the basis that the sales were connected with fraudulent evasion leading to a loss of tax and the appellant knew or should have known that the sales were so connected- appeal dismissed- denial of zero-rating on the basis of failure to provide sufficient evidence of removal as required- VAT Notice 725- appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 474 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 24 October 2022; Ref: scu.632281

Jem Leisure Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Dec 2011

VALUE ADDED TAX – Application by the Appellant for an extension of time to appeal against decisions by HMRC – Balancing exercise undertaken setting off the loss to the Appellant if the extension was not granted against (a) the public interest in the need for good administration, legal certainty and respect for the general time limit for bringing an appeal which Parliament has laid down; (b) the discerned prejudice to HMRC in having to reopen their examination of the Appellant’s claim were an extension of time for appealing to be granted; and (c) the Appellant’s discerned culpability for the long delay in initiating its appeal – held on the facts that the balance was against granting an extension of time to appeal – application refused and appeal struck out

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 778 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 23 October 2022; Ref: scu.450917