Category: VAT

Ideal tourisme SA v Belgian State: ECJ 13 Jul 2000

Europa In the present state of harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to the common system of value added tax, the Community principle of equal treatment does not preclude legislation of a Member State which on the one hand, in accordance with Article 28(3)(b) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, in the version of Directive 96/95 amending, with regard to the level of the standard rate of value added tax, Directive 77/388, continues to exempt international passenger transport by air, and on the other hand taxes international passenger transport by coach.
VAT – Sixth Directive 77/388/EEC – Transitional provisions – Retention of the exemption for international passenger transport by air – No exemption for international passenger transport by coach – Discrimination – State aid.
C-36/99, [2001] STC 1386, [2000] EUECJ C-36/99
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 28-Jul-2005
The claimant had sought repayment of overpaid VAT, and the respondent resisted arguing that this would be an unjust enrichment. A reference to the European Court was sought.
Held: It was not possible to say that the House’s opinion was acte . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 25 August 2021; Ref: scu.162597

EMIS National User Group v Revenue and Customs: VDT 5 Jul 2006

VALUE ADDED TAX – Exempt supplies – supplies by a non-profit making organisation to its members, medical practitioners, in return for membership subscriptions – whether exempt under item 1(c), Gp. 9, Sch 9 VATA 1994 – whether the organisation’s ‘primary purpose’ was the advancement of a particular branch of knowledge or the fostering of professional expertise – finding that the organisation supports its members in learning and applying health informatics by reference to particular (EMIS) clinical software – held that its primary purpose was not the advancement of a particular branch of knowledge, but was the practical purpose of the fostering of its members’ professional expertise – appeal allowed
[2006] UKVAT V19645
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.243274

Unistar Group Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs (VAT : Determination of Interest By Tribunal): FTTTx 16 Apr 2020

VAT – determination of interest by Tribunal under s84(8) VATA 1994 – convention that interest be awarded at base rate plus 1% – evidence adduced that appellants were paying rates in excess of that level – rates available to class of borrowers – RSPCA and Emblaze considered and applied – interest awarded based on evidence of rates available to SMEs during the period
[2020] UKFTT 191 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 August 2021; Ref: scu.651590

Stichtung ‘Goed Wonen’ and others v Staatssecretaris van Financien: ECJ 4 Oct 2001

A letting for the purpose of the VAT directive was essentially ‘the conferring by a landlord on a tenant for an agreed period and in return for payment of the right to occupy property as if that person were the owner and to exclude any other person from the property as if that person were the owner and to exclude any other person from enjoyment of such a right’
[2001] 3 CMLR 54, C-326/99, [2001] ECR I-6831, [2001] EUECJ C-326/99, [2003] STC 1137, ECLI:EU:C:2001:506, [2002] CEC 213, [2003] STI 1068, [2001] ECR I-6831, [2002] BVC 46, [2001] BTC 5583
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Belgian State v Temco Europe ECJ 18-Nov-2004
Where the substance of a transaction was merely that premises were made available under a licence for occupation, rather than for the provision of services, a licence to occupy premises could be treated as a letting for the purpose of the Sixth . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 21 August 2021; Ref: scu.166669

Sansom v Revenue and Customs (VAT : DIY Housebuilders Scheme): FTTTx 23 Apr 2020

VAT – DIY housebuilders scheme – submission of claim within three months of certificate of completion – HMRC refusal of claim on the basis that it should have been made ‘by’ one or more earlier dates – consideration of case law in Hall, Farquharson, Fraser and Dunbar – HMRC cannot displace certificate of completion as primary evidence of property’s completion – reasons in Farquharson and Dunbar accepted and followed – further reasons – appeal allowed.
[2020] UKFTT 198 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.651587

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Mushashi Autoparts Europe Ltd: ChD 26 Feb 2003

The claimant challenged a charge to interest on unpaid VAT. He had made a return but later established that the goods had been exported to an EU member state and thus were zero-rated.
Held: The was still liable to pay interest. The subsequent establishment of zero-rating did not help him to avoid paying interest on the previous standard rate assessment. The goods did not become zero-rated ab initio, but were standard rated until the became zero-rated at the point when their destination was established.
Lightman J
Times 01-Apr-2003, Gazette 01-May-2003
Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 (1995 No 2518) 134
England and Wales

Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.180395

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Alzitrans SL: ChD 29 Jan 2003

The Commissioners had seized a lorry which had been carrying goods on which duty had not been paid. The respondent asked them to review their decision under section 14. They failed to give their determination and under section 15, were deemed to have upheld their decision. The respondent then appealed to the tribunal, but the commissioners relied upon different grounds at the tribunal.
Held: The commissioners were not to be deemed to have upheld their initial decision on the same grounds, and were not prevented from presenting additional or different grounds. However, once requested for the grounds of the deemed decision, they were under a duty then to give their reasons. This was necessary to allow the respondent to consider whether to appeal. The decision to seize was disproportionate, but the tribunal had acted beyond its powers in ordering restoration. Case remitted.
The issue was whether the Commissioners were correct to revoke the BTI. Commissioners commonly adopted new legal arguments in the course of an appeal to the Tribunal. Accordingly, the Tribunal said, ‘we do not consider that the revocation decision is invalid because the Commissioners put forward different reasons, in the light of the annulment of the Regulation for the classification being wrong, as they had always contended’
Times 10-Feb-2003, [2003] EWHC 75 (Ch)
Finance Act 1994 14 15
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Newbury Admn 3-Mar-2003
The commissioner appealed a finding that a car and other goods they had forfeited should be returned. The owner said that matters had been imported for personal use under the directive.
Held: The directive had direct effect and precedence over . .
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.
Updated: 20 August 2021; Ref: scu.179027

Bakcsi v Finanzamt Furstenfeldbruck: ECJ 8 Mar 2001

A capital item had been acquired partly for business and privately for private purposes. It had been bought from a private non-taxable individual, but later came to be used exclusively within the business, before being sold. On this sale, this was now a business asset, and was the transaction was chargeable to VAT. The fact of charging repair bills to VAT was not conclusive to determine whether it was a business asset since the rules were different for repairs and assets.
VAT – Articles 2(1), 5(6) and 11.A(1)(a) of the Sixth VAT Directive – Mixed-use goods – Incorporation into the private or business assets of a taxable person – Sale of a business asset – Second-hand item purchased from a private individual
Times 22-Mar-2001, C-415/98, [2001] EUECJ C-415/98, ECLI:EU:C:2001:136
Bailii
Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of laws relating to turnover taxes
European

Updated: 17 August 2021; Ref: scu.162540

Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 23 Jun 2021

Whether HMRC were entitled to raise an assessment under section 73 (2) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 on Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust claiming repayment of amounts wrongly refunded to the Trust under section 41 of VATA.
Lord Justice Lewison
[2021] EWCA Civ 942
Bailii, Judiciary
England and Wales

Updated: 16 August 2021; Ref: scu.663465

YMCA Birmingham and Others v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 1 May 2020

VAT – Exemption – Welfare services – Art 132(1)(g) VAT Directive – Item 9 Group 7 sch 9 VATA 1994 – Supporting People Programme – Housing related support -Relevance of identity of recipient of supplies – Meaning of distressed persons – Meaning of instruction
[2020] UKUT 143 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – YMCA Birmingham and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 21-Jun-2018
VAT – Exemption – welfare services – art 132(1)(g) PVD – Item 9 Group 7 sch 9 VATA 1994 – Supporting People programme – housing related support – identity of recipient of supplies – whether distressed persons – whether instruction – whether designed . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.652559

YMCA Birmingham and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 21 Jun 2018

VAT – Exemption – welfare services – art 132(1)(g) PVD – Item 9 Group 7 sch 9 VATA 1994 – Supporting People programme – housing related support – identity of recipient of supplies – whether distressed persons – whether instruction – whether designed to promote physical or mental welfare – interaction with welfare advice and information in Group 9 sch 7A VATA 1994
[2018] UKFTT 458 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – YMCA Birmingham and Others v Revenue and Customs UTTC 1-May-2020
VAT – Exemption – Welfare services – Art 132(1)(g) VAT Directive – Item 9 Group 7 sch 9 VATA 1994 – Supporting People Programme – Housing related support -Relevance of identity of recipient of supplies – Meaning of distressed persons – Meaning of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.622369

Administratia Judeteana a Finantelor Publice Suceava and Others (Vat – Right To Deduct – Judgment): ECJ 3 Jun 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Right to deduct – Adjustment of deductions – Insolvency proceedings – National legislation providing for automatic refusal to allow deduction of VAT in respect of taxable transactions that occurred prior to the initiation of those proceedings
C-182/20, [2021] EUECJ C-182/20
Bailii
European

Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.664244

Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken v Ministero delle Finanze: ECJ 8 Jun 2006

It was alleged that a provision limiting the identity of those who could claim a VAT repayment offended against the principle of equivalence because there was no comparable restriction in relation to the recovery of overpaid direct tax.
Held: Advocate General Sharpston agreed with the following submission of the Commission: ‘In general . . a situation in that (direct tax) field is unlikely to be comparable to that in the field of VAT. In the latter it is in principle only the supplier who is in a direct legal relationship with the tax authority. Indeed, the whole system of direct taxation is unrelated to that of VAT. Since the principle of non-discrimination concerns only comparable situations, it is thus not relevant here.’
In its judgment, the Court adopted the more general part of the Commission’s argument: ‘In the present case, the system of direct taxation, as a whole, is not related to the VAT system.’
Accordingly, the Court concluded that none of the EU anti-discriminatory principles, including the principle of equivalence, were engaged by the comparison between VAT and direct taxation.
Advocate General Sharpston
C-35/05, [2006] EUECJ C-35/05, [2007] ECR I-2452
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 11 August 2021; Ref: scu.408729

Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs: SC 26 Jul 2018

The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true comparator among domestic claims sufficient to engage the principle of equivalence in relation to the imposition of a pay-first requirement upon traders seeking to appeal assessments to VAT.
Lady Hale, President, Lord Sumption, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 44, [2018] STI 1496, [2018] WLR(D) 531, [2018] STC 1642, [2018] 1 WLR 4053, [2018] BVC 38, UKSC 2017/0023
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Apr 25 am Video, SC 2018 Apr 25 pm Video, SC 2018 Apr 26 am Video
England and Wales
Citing:
At CA – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs CA 20-Dec-2016
Claim that the UK’s VAT prepayments rule infringes European law. . .
Cited – Edilizia Industriale Siderurgica v Ministero delle Finanze ECJ 15-Sep-1998
ECJ (Judgment) Recovery of sums paid but not due – Procedural time-limits under national law
Orse EDIS v Ministero delle Finanze . .
Cited – Levez v T H Jennings (Harlow Pools) Ltd ECJ 1-Dec-1998
Regulations debarred a claim after a certain time even where the delay had been because of a deliberate concealment of information by an employer.
Held: Availability of other means of redress was not sufficient to displace this rule.
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Stringer, Ainsworth and Others HL 10-Jun-2009
In each case, the employee had retired after long term sickness. The Employment tribunal had upheld their ability to claim arrears of sickness pay arising under the 1998 Regulations, as an unlawful deduction from their wages. They now appealed . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise Admn 21-Dec-1998
The limitation period for the recovery of overpaid VAT was alleged to offend the principle of equivalence.
Held: Moses J said: ‘In my judgment no comparison can be made with other types of tax such as income tax payable in respect of an . .
Cited – Preston and Others v Wolverhampton Healthcare NHS Trust and Others, Fletcher and Others v Midland Bank Plc (No 2) HL 8-Feb-2001
Part-time workers claimed that they had been unlawfully excluded from occupational pension schemes because membership was dependent on an employee working a minimum number of hours per week and that that was discriminatory because a considerably . .
Cited – Compass Contract Services (Taxation – Value Added Tax Taxation : Judgment) ECJ 14-Jun-2017
The case involved a comparison between different limitation periods applicable to claims to recover overpaid VAT, and claims to deduct input tax from VAT otherwise due, for the purposes of the equal treatment principle. The Fourth Chamber of the . .
Cited – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs ECJ 19-Jul-2012
(Grand Chamber) Second and Sixth VAT Directives – Input tax – Refund of excess – Payment of interest – Procedures
The court considered whether on repayment to a taxpayer of wrongly imposed VAT, the interest returned with the repayment should be . .
Cited – Reemtsma Cigarettenfabriken v Ministero delle Finanze ECJ 8-Jun-2006
It was alleged that a provision limiting the identity of those who could claim a VAT repayment offended against the principle of equivalence because there was no comparable restriction in relation to the recovery of overpaid direct tax.
Held: . .
Cited – Transportes Urbanos Y Servicios Generales (Principles Of Community Law) ECJ 26-Jan-2010
(Grand chamber) Procedural autonomy of the Member States – Principle of equivalence – Action for damages against the State – Breach of European Union law – Breach of the Constitution . .
Cited – Virginie Pontin v T-Comalux SA (Social Policy) ECJ 31-Mar-2009
ECJ Social policy – Protection of pregnant workers and workers who have recently given birth or are breastfeeding Directive 92/85/EEC Articles 10 and 12 Prohibition of dismissal from the beginning of pregnancy . .
Cited – HM Revenue and Customs v Changtel Solutions UK Ltd CA 28-Jan-2015
The Court was asked whether, when there is both (i) an appeal against a VAT assessment pending in the tax tribunal, and (ii) a winding-up petition pending in the Companies court, the tax tribunal or the Companies court is the appropriate forum to . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.620140

HM Revenue and Customs v Changtel Solutions UK Ltd: CA 28 Jan 2015

The Court was asked whether, when there is both (i) an appeal against a VAT assessment pending in the tax tribunal, and (ii) a winding-up petition pending in the Companies court, the tax tribunal or the Companies court is the appropriate forum to determine whether the petition debt is disputed in good faith on substantial grounds, or, in other words, whether the appeal has a real as opposed to a fanciful or frivolous prospect of success.
Longmore, Patten, Vos LJJ
[2015] EWCA Civ 29, [2015] 2 BCLC 586, [2015] BVC 8, [2015] WLR(D) 33, [2015] BCC 317, [2015] BPIR 327, [2015] 1 WLR 3911, [2015] STC 931, [2015] STI 248
Bailii, WLRD
Tribunal Procedure (First-tier Tribunal)(Tax Chamber) Rules 2009 8(3)(c)
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.541957

Compass Contract Services UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 30 Apr 2014

FTTTx Appeal progressing without payment of tax or hardship relief – jurisdiction to make Directions in absence of compliance with section 84(3),(3A)and(3B) VATA 1994 – status of Directions and Orders so made – barring order against HMRC – application for relief – applicability of Mitchell principles as applied by McCarthy and Stone – application dismissed
[2014] UKFTT 403 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.525329

Compass Contract Services (Taxation – Value Added Tax Taxation : Judgment): ECJ 14 Jun 2017

The case involved a comparison between different limitation periods applicable to claims to recover overpaid VAT, and claims to deduct input tax from VAT otherwise due, for the purposes of the equal treatment principle. The Fourth Chamber of the CJEU concluded that, even within the confines of the VAT regime, the two claims were not truly comparable.
C-38/16, [2017] EUECJ C-38/16, [2017] STC 1358, ECLI:EU:C:2017:454, [2017] 4 WLR 168, [2017] BVC 30, [2017] STI 1393, [2017] WLR(D) 396
Bailii, WLRD
European
Cited by:
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.588260

Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

(Grand Chamber) Second and Sixth VAT Directives – Input tax – Refund of excess – Payment of interest – Procedures
The court considered whether on repayment to a taxpayer of wrongly imposed VAT, the interest returned with the repayment should be on a simple or compound basis.
Held: ‘European Union law must be interpreted as requiring that a taxable person who has overpaid value added tax which was collected by the member state contrary to the requirements of European Union legislation on value added tax has a right to reimbursement of the tax collected in breach of European Union law and to the payment of interest on the amount of the latter. It is for national law to determine, in compliance with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, whether the principal sum must bear ‘simple interest’, ‘compound interest’ or another type of interest.’
V Skouris, P
[2012] EUECJ C-591/10, ECLI:EU:C:2012:478, [2012] STC 1714
Bailii
European
Citing:
Opinion – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs ECJ 12-Jan-2012
Opinion – Reimbursement of VAT collected in breach of EU law – Interest – Simple interest – Compound interest – Procedural autonomy of the Member States – Principle of effectiveness – Principle of equivalence . .

Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies SC 11-Apr-2017
Certain investment trust companies (ITCs) sought refunds of VAT paid on the supply of investment management services. EU law however clarified that they were not due. Refunds were restricted by the Commissioners both as to the amounts and limitation . .
Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.640867

Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: Admn 21 Dec 1998

The limitation period for the recovery of overpaid VAT was alleged to offend the principle of equivalence.
Held: Moses J said: ‘In my judgment no comparison can be made with other types of tax such as income tax payable in respect of an individual’s profits or the tax on a document imposed by stamp duty. Other forms of indirect taxation, such as excise duty, are wholly different types of tax.
It seems to me that the jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice, exemplified in EDILIZIA, requires a comparison between the approach of a member state to the recovery of tax charged in breach of Community rules and the recovery of the same tax in breach of domestic rules. Any wider enquiry would invite unnecessary argument as to whether there is a true comparison.’
Moses J
[1998] EWHC 1143 (Admin), [1999] STC 205, [1999] Eu LR 450, [1999] 1 CMLR 1152, [1999] BTC 5073, [1999] BVC 107
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Appeal from – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise CA 14-Dec-1999
The taxpayer discovered that it had over several years made overpayments of VAT on chocolate covered biscuits because of a mistake as to the tax mutual with the defendants.
Held: MandS’s challenge to section 80(4) (as infringing EU law) . .
First instance – Marks and Spencer Plc v Customs and Excise HL 4-Feb-2009
The taxpayer requested refund of VAT overpaid on chocolate covered cakes. The CandE resisted saying that the money had been substantially already paid by its customers. The case had been referred twice to the ECJ, who answered that the maintenance . .
Cited – Totel Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 26-Jul-2018
The taxpayer challenged the ‘pay first’ rule under VAT which required them, before challenging a VAT assessment, first to deposit the VAT said to be due under the assessment.
Held: The appeal failed. There had not been shown any true . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.280499

Littlewoods Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 21 May 2015

The company sought repayment by way of restitution for overpaid taxes. The tax had been repaid, but only as simple interest, and not compounded. Both parties now appealed from a decision that the Act did not apply to exclude under sections 78 and 80 of the 1994 Act.
Held: Littlewoods’ claims ere excluded by sections 78 and 80 of the 1994 Act, as a matter of English law and without reference to EU law.
The critical words in section 78(1) concern liabilities to pay ‘interest’. In their view, it was a strained use of language to describe a liability to make restitution for the time value of money as a liability to pay interest, even if the relief was calculated by reference to interest rates (para 45).
[2015] EWCA Civ 515, [2015] WLR(D) 228, [2015] BVC 26, [2015] STI 1791, [2015] 3 WLR 1748, [2016] Ch 373, [2015] STC 2014, [2015] STC 2384
Bailii, WLRD
Value Added Tax Act 1994 94
England and Wales
Citing:
Appeal from – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs (No 2) ChD 28-Mar-2014
The claimants had recovered very substantial overpayments made of VAT. They sought recovery of compound interest. The ECJ, on reference, said that this was a matter for national law.
Held: The claim succeeded. The sections of the 1994 Act were . .
Criticised – FJ Chalke Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 8-May-2009
The court was asked as to the effectiveness under European law of sections 78 and 80 of the 1994 Act.
Held: Henderson J focused on the fact that section 80(7) excludes any common law liability to repay the overpaid VAT, and inferred that it . .

Cited by:
Appeal from (CA) – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 25-Jul-2018
PAC sought to recover excess advance corporation tax paid under a UK system contrary to EU law. It was now agreed that some was repayable but now the quantum. Five issues separated the parties.
Issue I: does EU law require the tax credit to be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.547012

Revenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies: SC 11 Apr 2017

Certain investment trust companies (ITCs) sought refunds of VAT paid on the supply of investment management services. EU law however clarified that they were not due. Refunds were restricted by the Commissioners both as to the amounts and limitation period applied. The claimants’ allegation of unjust enrichment by the Commissioners had been accepted by the CA. The Court was now asked whether the ITCs in principle could make out a claim in unjust enrichment against the Commissioners, whether such a claim was excluded by the statutory scheme under s.80 and whether the lack of any such claim was incompatible with EU law.
Held: The commissioners’ appeal was granted, and the cross appeal dismissed.
The Commissioners had been enriched only by the VAT it had received from the managers. This was the surplus of output tax over deducted input tax which it had actually received. Since the claimants had only paid the VAT to the managers, not direct to the revenue, that payment and the managers’ accounting to the revenue for and paying the VAT due was not reducible to one transaction of the transfer of value from the claimants to the revenue. The Commissioners had not been enriched at the direct expense of the claimants, so they had no right at common law to restitution from the revenue, although they may well have a claim against the managers for the VAT they had paid.
The limitation period is designed to avoid the disruption of public finances. Section 80(7) should be construed as excluding non-statutory claims by customers, as well as taxpayers (as was conceded), which might otherwise lie against HMRC in circumstances falling within the scope of section 80: ‘Parliament cannot sensibly be taken to have intended, when it created this scheme for the reimbursement of suppliers (with provision for them in turn to reimburse their customers), subject to strict time limits, that it should exist concurrently with non-statutory liabilities towards suppliers and their customers which were potentially wider in scope and were subject to a longer and less certain limitation period. Such an intention would be inconsistent with the rationale of the statutory scheme.’
Lord Neuberger, President, Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge
[2017] UKSC 29, [2017] STI 1041, [2017] 2 WLR 1200, [2017] BVC 16, [2017] 3 All ER 113, [2017] WLR(D) 28, [2017] STC 985, [2018] AC 275, UKSC 2015/0058
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video
VAT Act 1994 80, Value Added Tax Regulations 1995
England and Wales
Citing:
At First Instance – Investment Trust Companies v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 2-Mar-2012
The claimant had properly accounted for VAT on its transactions for many years, but a decision of the European court had latterly ruled that the services were exempt. The claimant sought restitution from HMRC, who responded by arguing that . .
At ChD (2) – Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs ChD 26-Mar-2013
The claimant investment Trust companies sought repayment of taxes paid in error by way of restitution.
Held: The range of the the law of restitution to recover any tax unlawfully exacted was to be be restricted to those situations where the . .
Appeal from – Investment Trust Companies v Revenue and Customs CA 12-Feb-2015
The claimants having sought repayment of overpaid VAT, they now complained of sums deducted by the Revenue.
Held: The Court allowed the Lead Claimants’ appeal, to the extent of the notional pounds 75 paid in respect of dead periods, and . .
Cited – JP Morgan Fleming Claverhouse Investment Trust and Another v HM Revenue and Customs (Taxation) ECJ 1-Mar-2007
ECJ Value added tax – Exemption of the management of special investment funds Concept of ‘special investment funds as defined by Member States’ discretion limits – Closed-ended investment funds. . .
Cited – Fleming (T/A Bodycraft) v Revenue and Customs HL 23-Jan-2008
The transitional rules introducing time limits for failing to deduct VAT inputs made insufficient allowance for the decisions in Marks and Spencer and Grundig.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘To be compatible with EU law, taxpayers were entitled to be . .
Cited – Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
Cited – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
Cited – Moses v Macferlan KBD 1760
An action for money had and received will only lie where it is inequitable for the defendant to retain the money. The defendant in an action for money had and received ‘can be liable no further than the money he has received’. . .
Mentioned – Moses v Macferlan KBD 1760
An action for money had and received will only lie where it is inequitable for the defendant to retain the money. The defendant in an action for money had and received ‘can be liable no further than the money he has received’. . .
Cited – Becker v Finanzamt Muenster-Innenstadt ECJ 19-Jan-1982
ECJ It would be incompatible with the binding effect which article 189 of the EEC treaty ascribes to directives to exclude in principle the possibility of the obligation imposed by it being relied upon by persons . .
Cited – Lipkin Gorman (a Firm) v Karpnale Ltd HL 6-Jun-1991
The plaintiff firm of solicitors sought to recover money which had been stolen from them by a partner, and then gambled away with the defendant. He had purchased their gaming chips, and the plaintiff argued that these, being gambling debts, were . .
Cited – Peter v Beblow 25-Mar-1993
Supreme Court of Canada – Family law – Trusts – Constructive trust – Long-term common law relationship – Unpaid homemaker – Homemaker maintaining and improving property – Whether proprietary link necessary to constructive trust established – Whether . .
Cited – Elida Gibbs Ltd v Commissioners Of Customs And Excise ECJ 24-Oct-1996
ECJ Where
(a) a manufacturer issues a money-off coupon, which is redeemable at the amount stated on the coupon by or at the expense of the manufacturer in favour of the retailer, (b) the coupon, which is . .
Cited – Banque Financiere De La Cite v Parc (Battersea) Ltd and Others HL 16-Apr-1998
The making of an order for restitution after finding an unjust enrichment by subrogation, is not dependant upon having found any common or unilateral intention of the parties. The House distinguished between contractual subrogation of the kind most . .
Cited – Ministero delle Finanze v IN CO GE ’90 and others ECJ 22-Oct-1998
(Rec 1998,p I-6307) (Judgment) The case concerned claims for the repayment of a charge which had been levied under Italian legislation which was inconsistent with EU law. A preliminary issue before the national court was whether the claims fell . .
Cited – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs ECJ 19-Jul-2012
(Grand Chamber) Second and Sixth VAT Directives – Input tax – Refund of excess – Payment of interest – Procedures
The court considered whether on repayment to a taxpayer of wrongly imposed VAT, the interest returned with the repayment should be . .
Cited – The Child Poverty Action Group v Secretary of State for Work and Pensions SC 8-Dec-2010
The Action Group had obtained a declaration that, where an overpayment of benefits had arisen due to a miscalculation by the officers of the Department, any process of recovering the overpayment must be by the Act, and that the Department could not . .
Cited – TFL Management Services Ltd v Lloyds Bank Plc CA 14-Nov-2013
The court was asked: ‘A spends money seeking a judgment for the recovery of a debt from B. A fails to recover the debt because, so the court holds, the debt is not in fact owed by B to A (as A mistakenly thought), but owed by B to C. C then recovers . .
Cited – Relfo Ltd (In Liquidation) v Varsani CA 28-Mar-2014
. .
Cited – Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd v Menelaou SC 4-Nov-2015
The bank customers, now appellants, redeemed a mortgage over their property, and the property was transferred to family members, who in turn borrowed from the same lender. A bank employee simply changed the name on the mortgage. This was ineffective . .
Cited – Ruabon Steamship Co v The London Assurance Co HL 1900
Lord Halisbury said: ‘I cannot understand how it can be asserted that it is part of the common law that where one person gets some advantage from the act of another, a right of contribution towards the expense from that act arises.’ Rejecting the . .
Cited – Menelaou v Bank of Cyprus UK Ltd CA 19-Jun-2013
The Court was asked questions about the law of unjust enrichment, and one of the remedies which may be granted to reverse the effect of unjust enrichment, namely subrogation to an unpaid vendor’s lien. The bank had released its charges over property . .
Cited – Burston Finance Ltd v Speirway Ltd ChD 1974
Walton J described the typical case of subrogation: ‘What is the basis of the doctrine of subrogation? It is simply that, where A’s money is used to pay off the claim of B, who is a secured creditor, A is entitled to be regarded in equity as having . .
Cited – 123 East Fifty-Fourth Street Inc v United States 1946
(Learned Hand J dissenting) The majority affirmed a judgment for refund of cabaret taxes improperly levied in the erroneous belief that the taxpayer’s establishment qualified as a cabaret. The majority held that the limitation statute, in its then . .
Cited – Hanover Shoe Inc v United Shoe Machinery Corporation 14-Oct-1968
United States Supreme Court . .
Cited – Barclays Bank Ltd v Quistclose Investments Ltd; etc HL 31-Oct-1968
R Ltd were in serious financial difficulties. The company’s overdraft with the appellant bank was almost twice its permitted limit. The company sought a loan of 1 million pounds from a financier, who was willing to lend the company that sum provided . .
Cited – Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Spa San Giorgio ECJ 9-Nov-1983
ECJ Questions submitted for a preliminary ruling – reference to the court – right of every national court – stage of the proceedings before the national court – nature of the decision to be given by the national . .
Cited – Abbey National Building Society v Cann HL 29-Mar-1990
Registered land was bought with an advance from the plaintiff. The transfer and charge were registered one month later, but in the meantime, the buyer’s parents moved in. When the buyer defaulted, his mother resisted possession proceedings, saying . .
Cited – Commissioner of State Revenue v The Royal Insurance Australia Ltd 7-Dec-1994
(High Court of Australia) A payment had been made under statute which was later repealed with retrospective effect.
Held: The monies paid under the retrospectively repealed statute had not been paid under a mistake of law at common law. . .
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Birmingham City Council CA 20-May-1996
No defence of unjust enrichment was available to defend a claim on a failed interest rate swap agreement. . .
Cited – Kleinwort Benson Ltd v Lincoln City Council etc HL 29-Jul-1998
Right of Recovery of Money Paid under Mistake
Kleinwort Benson had made payments to a local authority under swap agreements which were thought to be legally enforceable when made. Subsequently, a decision of the House of Lords, (Hazell v. Hammersmith and Fulham) established that such swap . .
Cited – VDP Dental Laboratory v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 26-Feb-2015
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax – Deductions – Exemptions – Supplies of dental prostheses . .
Cited – Monro v HM Revenue and Customs CA 9-Apr-2008
The Commissioners conceded that, in principle, there could be a common law right to recover sums paid by way of tax under a mistake of law, but argued that such a claim was precluded because it would be inconsistent with the statutory scheme under . .
Cited – Kingstreet Investments Ltd v New Brunswick (Finance) Ltd 11-Jan-2007
(Supreme Court of Canada) . .
Cited – British Columbia v Canadian Forest Products Ltd 11-Jun-2004
Canlii Damages – Environmental damages to public lands – Compensation – Forest fire – Valuation of loss of harvestable trees, and of non-harvestable trees in environmentally sensitive areas – Appropriate basis to . .
Cited – Equuscorp Pty Ltd v Haxton 8-Mar-2012
High Court of Australia – Restitution – Restitution of benefits derived from unenforceable or illegal contracts – Recovery of money paid as money had and received – Respondents invested in tax driven blueberry farming schemes – Respondents borrowed . .
Cited – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs (No 2) ChD 28-Mar-2014
The claimants had recovered very substantial overpayments made of VAT. They sought recovery of compound interest. The ECJ, on reference, said that this was a matter for national law.
Held: The claim succeeded. The sections of the 1994 Act were . .

Cited by:
Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Cited – Lowick Rose Llp v Swynson Ltd and Another SC 11-Apr-2017
Losses arose from the misvaluation of a company before its purchase. The respondent had funded the purchase, relying upon a valuation by the predecessor of the appellant firm of accountants. Further advances had been made when the true situation was . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 25-Jul-2018
PAC sought to recover excess advance corporation tax paid under a UK system contrary to EU law. It was now agreed that some was repayable but now the quantum. Five issues separated the parties.
Issue I: does EU law require the tax credit to be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.581647

Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: SC 1 Nov 2017

The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 billion pounds).
Held: ‘Since the scheme created by section 78 is inconsistent with the availability of concurrent common law claims to interest, it must therefore be interpreted as impliedly excluding such claims. The reservation set out in section 78(1) must therefore be construed as referring only to statutory liabilities to pay interest. So construed, section 78 impliedly excludes the claims made by Littlewoods, as a matter of English law, and without reference to EU law.’
The CJEU has given member state courts a discretion to provide reasonable redress in the form of interest in addition to the mandatory repayment of any wrongly levied tax, interest and penalties. We have three reasons for this view. First, the structure of the CJEU’s judgment itself and its choice of words support this conclusion. Secondly, the practice of member states in awarding interest on wrongly levied tax provides the context of the CJEU’s judgment and suggests that the court was not being as radical as the courts below have held. Thirdly, prior and subsequent case law of the CJEU is consistent with this interpretation.
There is nothing in the prior or subsequent case law of the CJEU which militates against the interpretation of its judgment in this case. Consistently with the views expressed by the European Commission and the member state governments which submitted arguments to the court in this case, the CJEU has not required the payment of more than simple interest if the national legal order treats that as reasonable redress for the unavailability of the money and no issue of equivalence arises. The CJEU’s reliance on the principles of effectiveness and equivalence is wholly consistent with its jurisprudence that the questions of the rate and method of calculation of interest are matters for the internal legal order of a member state.
Littlewoods had already recovered overpaid tax, and interest on that amount, going back several decades. The size of that recovery reflects a combination of circumstances which could not have occurred in most of the other EU member states: the retroactive nature of a major development of the common law by the courts, so as to allow for the first time the recovery of money paid under a mistake in law, and the inability of the legislature to respond to that development, under EU law, by retroactively altering the law of limitation so as to protect public finances. The resultant payment of interest cannot realistically be regarded as having deprived Littlewoods of an adequate indemnity, in the sense in which that expression should be interpreted.
Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge JJSC, Lord Neuberger of Abbotsbury and Lord Clarke of Stone-cum-Ebony
[2017] UKSC 70, [2018] AC 869, [2017] 3 WLR 1401, [2017] WLR(D) 744, [2018] 1 All ER 83, [2017] STC 2413, UKSC 2015/0178, UKSC 2015/0177
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2017 07 03 am Video, SC 2017 07 03 pm Video, SC 2017 07 04 am Video, SC 2017 07 04 pm Video
Value Added Tax Act 1994 94
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Woolwich Equitable Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (2) HL 20-Jul-1992
The society had set out to assert that regulations were unlawful in creating a double taxation. It paid money on account of the tax demanded. It won and recovered the sums paid, but the revenue refused to pay any interest accrued on the sums paid. . .
Cited – Rewe-Zentralfinanz eG v Landwirtschaftskammer fur das Saarland (Judgment) ECJ 16-Dec-1976
‘the right of individuals to rely on the directly effective provisions of the Treaty before national courts is only a minimum guarantee and is not sufficient in itself to ensure the full and complete implementation of the Treaty’ . .
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 . .
At ChD – The Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v The Commissioners of Inland Revenue and Another ChD 14-Oct-2015
. .
Appeal from (CA) – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 21-May-2015
The company sought repayment by way of restitution for overpaid taxes. The tax had been repaid, but only as simple interest, and not compounded. Both parties now appealed from a decision that the Act did not apply to exclude under sections 78 and 80 . .
Cited – Sempra Metals Ltd v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another HL 18-Jul-2007
The parties agreed that damages were payable in an action for restitution, but the sum depended upon to a calculation of interest. They disputed whether such interest should be calculated on a simple or compound basis. The company sought compound . .
Cited – Test Claimants In The Franked Investment Income Group Litigation v Inland Revenue SC 23-May-2012
The European Court had found the UK to have unlawfully treated differently payment of franked dividends between subsidiaries of UK companies according to whether all the UK subsidiaries were themselves UK based, thus prejudicing European . .
Cited – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Revenue and Customs ECJ 19-Jul-2012
(Grand Chamber) Second and Sixth VAT Directives – Input tax – Refund of excess – Payment of interest – Procedures
The court considered whether on repayment to a taxpayer of wrongly imposed VAT, the interest returned with the repayment should be . .
Cited – Marks and Spencer plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 11-Jul-2002
The claimant challenged the reduction of the limitation period from six years to three for the reclaiming of overpaid VAT with immediate effect, depriving it of the opportunity to recover sums paid in excess. The company sold vouchers. It paid VAT . .
Cited – Fleming (T/A Bodycraft) v Revenue and Customs HL 23-Jan-2008
The transitional rules introducing time limits for failing to deduct VAT inputs made insufficient allowance for the decisions in Marks and Spencer and Grundig.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘To be compatible with EU law, taxpayers were entitled to be . .
At ChD (1) – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs ChD 4-Nov-2010
Overpayments of VAT had been repaid with interest. The claimants suggested that the interest should have been compounded. The court had decided that a reference to the ECJ was necessary. The Court now considered the form of that reference.
Cited – Revenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies SC 11-Apr-2017
Certain investment trust companies (ITCs) sought refunds of VAT paid on the supply of investment management services. EU law however clarified that they were not due. Refunds were restricted by the Commissioners both as to the amounts and limitation . .
Cited – FJ Chalke Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs ChD 8-May-2009
The court was asked as to the effectiveness under European law of sections 78 and 80 of the 1994 Act.
Held: Henderson J focused on the fact that section 80(7) excludes any common law liability to repay the overpaid VAT, and inferred that it . .
Cited – Hadley v Baxendale Exc 23-Feb-1854
Contract Damages; What follows the Breach Naturaly
The plaintiffs had sent a part of their milling machinery for repair. The defendants contracted to carry it, but delayed in breach of contract. The plaintiffs claimed damages for the earnings lost through the delay. The defendants appealed, saying . .
Cited – London, Chatham and Dover Railway Co v South Eastern Railway Co HL 1893
The Lord Chancellor was considering the position of a creditor whose debtor refused to exchange accounts as agreed, thus preventing the creditor from quantifying the debt.
Held: The House declined to alter the rule in Page -v- Newman.
Cited – Johnson v The King PC 22-Jun-1904
(Sierra Leone) For restitutionary claims, an action for money had and received only the net sum could be recovered. . .
Cited – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs (No 2) ChD 28-Mar-2014
The claimants had recovered very substantial overpayments made of VAT. They sought recovery of compound interest. The ECJ, on reference, said that this was a matter for national law.
Held: The claim succeeded. The sections of the 1994 Act were . .
Cited – Royal College of Nursing of the United Kingdom v Department of Health and Social Security HL 2-Jan-1981
The court was asked whether nurses could properly involve themselves in a pregnancy termination procedure not known when the Act was passed, and in particular, whether a pregnancy was ‘terminated by a medical practitioner’, when it was carried out . .
Cited – President of India v La Pintada Compagnia Navigacia SA (‘La Pintada’) HL 1985
The house decided against altering the rule in Page -v- Newman. ‘The common law does not award general damages for delay in payment of a debt beyond the date when it is contractually due’ The power given to the court under s 35A is discretionary. It . .
Cited – Amministrazione Delle Finanze Dello Stato v Spa San Giorgio ECJ 9-Nov-1983
ECJ Questions submitted for a preliminary ruling – reference to the court – right of every national court – stage of the proceedings before the national court – nature of the decision to be given by the national . .
Cited – Zuckerfabrik Julich AG v Hauptzollamt Aachen ECJ 22-Nov-2012
(Opinion) Rectification of the judgment . .
Cited – Regina v Secretary of State for Health ex parte Quintavalle (on behalf of Pro-Life Alliance) HL 13-Mar-2003
Court to seek and Apply Parliamentary Intention
The appellant challenged the practice of permitting cell nuclear replacement (CNR), saying it was either outside the scope of the Act, or was for a purpose which could not be licensed under the Act.
Held: The challenge failed. The court was to . .
Cited – Metallgesellschaft Ltd and Others v Inland Revenue Commissioners and Another Hoechst Ag and Another v Same ECJ 8-Mar-2001
The British law which meant that non-resident parent companies of British based businesses were not able to recover interest on payments of advance corporation tax, was discriminatory against other European based companies. Accordingly the law was . .
Cited – Irimie v Administratia Finantelor Publice Sibiu And Administratia Fondului Pentru Mediu ECJ 18-Apr-2013
Repayment of taxes levied by a Member State in breach of European Union law – National system limiting the interest payable by the Member State on the repaid tax – Interest calculated from the day following the date of the claim for repayment of the . .
Cited – M H Marshall v Southampton And South West Hampshire Area Health Authority (Teaching) ECJ 26-Feb-1986
ECJ The court considered the measure of compensation in a successful claim for sex discrimination arising from the health authority’s provision of an earlier compulsory retirement age for women compared with that . .
Cited – Palmisani v Instituto Nazionale della Previdenze Sociale (INPS) ECJ 10-Jul-1997
(Judgment) (Rec 1997,p I-4025) Social policy – Protection of employees in the event of the insolvency of their employer – Council Directive 80/987/EEC – Liability of a Member State arising from belated transposition of a directive – Adequate . .
Cited – Fantask and others v Industriministeriet ECJ 2-Dec-1997
ECJ Directive 69/335/EEC – Registration charges on companies – Procedural time-limits under national law. . .
Cited – Wortmann KG Internationale Schuhproduktionen v Hauptzollamt Bielefeld ECJ 18-Jan-2017
ECJ (Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Customs Union and Common Customs Tariff – Reimbursement of import duties – Regulation (EEC) No 2913/92 (Customs Code) – Article 241, first paragraph, first . .
Cited – Test Claimants In The FII Group Litigation v CIR ECJ 12-Dec-2006
ECJ (Opinion of Geelhoed AG) Interpretation of Articles 43 and 56 EC and Articles 4(1) and 6 of Council Directive 90/435/EEC of 23 July 1990 on the common system of taxation applicable in the case of parent . .

Cited by:
See Also – Franked Investment Income Group, Non-Test Claimants In The Litigation v Inland Revenue and Another ChD 31-Jul-2019
Two additional issues that arise in the claims of certain non-test claimants in the long-running Franked Investment Income Group Litigation under the group litigation order known as the FII GLO. . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 25-Jul-2018
PAC sought to recover excess advance corporation tax paid under a UK system contrary to EU law. It was now agreed that some was repayable but now the quantum. Five issues separated the parties.
Issue I: does EU law require the tax credit to be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.598454

Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs (No 2): ChD 28 Mar 2014

The claimants had recovered very substantial overpayments made of VAT. They sought recovery of compound interest. The ECJ, on reference, said that this was a matter for national law.
Held: The claim succeeded. The sections of the 1994 Act were not in compliance with EU law and had to be disapplied. The claimants were entitled to recover the full sums. Only an award of compound interest would satisfy Littlewoods’ rights under EU law, that the exclusion of the claims by sections 78 and 80 of the 1994 Act was therefore incompatible with EU law, and that those provisions had to be disapplied so as to allow Littlewoods to pursue their claims.
Henderson J
[2014] EWHC 868 (Ch), [2014] WLR(D) 154, [2014] STC 1761
Bailii, WLRD
Value Added Tax 1994 78 80
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Benedetti v Sawiris and Others SC 17-Jul-2013
The claimant appealed against reduction of the sum awarded on his claim for a quantum meruit after helping to facilitate a very substantial business deal for the defendants.
Held: The correct approach to the amount to be paid by way of a . .
See Also – Littlewoods Retail Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs ChD 4-Nov-2010
Overpayments of VAT had been repaid with interest. The claimants suggested that the interest should have been compounded. The court had decided that a reference to the ECJ was necessary. The Court now considered the form of that reference.
Cited by:
Appeal from – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v HM Revenue and Customs CA 21-May-2015
The company sought repayment by way of restitution for overpaid taxes. The tax had been repaid, but only as simple interest, and not compounded. Both parties now appealed from a decision that the Act did not apply to exclude under sections 78 and 80 . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v The Investment Trust Companies SC 11-Apr-2017
Certain investment trust companies (ITCs) sought refunds of VAT paid on the supply of investment management services. EU law however clarified that they were not due. Refunds were restricted by the Commissioners both as to the amounts and limitation . .
Cited – Littlewoods Ltd and Others v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs SC 1-Nov-2017
The appellants had overpaid under a mistake of law very substantial sums in VAT over several years. The excess had been repaid, but with simple interest and not compound interest, which the now claimed (together with other taxpayers amounting to 17 . .
Cited – Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 25-Jul-2018
PAC sought to recover excess advance corporation tax paid under a UK system contrary to EU law. It was now agreed that some was repayable but now the quantum. Five issues separated the parties.
Issue I: does EU law require the tax credit to be . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 10 August 2021; Ref: scu.523448

Fairbairn v Customs and Excise: VDT 15 Mar 2004

Application for Dismissal for no jurisdiction. Section 83 (p)(i). Supplementary Assessment under Section 77(6). No returns lodged by Appellant. That this Tribunal has no jurisdiction be held over pending lodgement of returns by Appellant. Time given to 30th September 2004. Coleman v CandE 25th May 1999 Decision 16178 followed.
[2004] UKVAT V18538
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 09 August 2021; Ref: scu.199072

MG Rover Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 19 Nov 2008

COSTS – Indemnity costs – Claim by unsuccessful Appellant – Appellant had appealed against refusal to allow input tax relief – Last minute change of argument by Respondents – Appellant withdrew appeal – Whether Appellants entitled to costs – No – VAT Trib rules r.29(1)
[2008] UKVAT V20871
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 August 2021; Ref: scu.301855

Barugh v Customs and Excise: VDT 13 Aug 2004

VAT – ZERO-RATING – construction of wall by non-registered individual claimed to be approved alteration of protected building qualifying for zero-rating – finding that supplies of materials made to appellant’s son – appeal dismissed.
VAT – zero-rating – construction of wall -supplier of materials made no supply of services – tax on materials therefore outside terms of recovery in item 2 Group 6 Schedule 8 VATA 1994
[2004] UKVAT V18725
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 August 2021; Ref: scu.200421

Linneweber (Taxation): ECJ 17 Feb 2005

Sixth VAT Directive – Exemption for games of chance – Determination of the conditions and limitations to which the exemption is subject – Liability of games organised outside public casinos – Respect for the principle of fiscal neutrality – Article 13B( f) – Direct effect
C-453/02, [2005] EUECJ C-453/02, [2007] BVC 227, [2005] 1 CMLR 53, ECLI:EU:C:2005:92, [2008] STC 1069, [2005] STI 255, [2005] ECR I-1131, [2007] BTC 5258, [2005] CEC 548
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.222751

Skandia America Corporation: ECJ 17 Sep 2014

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – VAT group – Internal invoicing for services supplied by a main company with its seat in a third country to its branch belonging to a VAT group within a Member State – Whether services supplied are taxable
[2014] EUECJ C-7/13 – J, C-7/13, [2015] STC 1163, ECLI:EU:C:2014:2225
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Opinion – Skandia America Corporation (Advocate General’s Opinion) ECJ 8-May-2014
ECJ Opinion – Common system of value added tax – VAT Grouping – Internal Billing for services provided by a company with its main office in a third country to its branch belonging to a group VAT in a Member State . .

Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.666307

Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v A Decision of The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): SCS 14 Jul 2016

Can the VAT group embodied in the appellant as representative member rely on those claims for repayment of VAT overpaid by the group, when the claims were made timeously but by another member of the VAT group rather than the representative member?
[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 54
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Dec-2012
FTTTx VAT – Preliminary Issues; Fleming claims; time bar; group registration; effect of leaving group; effect of disbandment; whether timeous claim by a former member of group entitles the representative member . .
At UTTC – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs UTTC 8-Sep-2014
VAT – Fleming claims – Preliminary Issues – Time-bar: construction of VATA 1994, s. 80 – Entitlement: whether right to repayment assigned; whether right capable of assignation; VATA 1994, s. 43. . .
SCS Leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 24-Apr-2015
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). . .
Appeal from refusal of leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc and Revenue and Customs Against A Decision of and Refusal of Leave To Appeal By The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 26-May-2015
Extra Division, Inner House Court of Session – appeal from a decision of and refusal of leave to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) – reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs . .
At SCS – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 14-Jul-2016
(Extra Division – Inner house) Reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs by former representative member of now dissolved VAT group. . .

Cited by:
Appeal from (SCS) – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 31 July 2021; Ref: scu.568760

Isajen Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 27 Feb 2009

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – Requirement for security under para. 4(2)(a), Sch. 11, VATA – History of connection of the common director with businesses which had been non-compliant with their VAT obligations – Appeal considered in the absence of the Appellant – Held, the requirement had not been shown to be unreasonable – Appeal dismissed
[2009] UKVAT V20967
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.346538

Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc: SC 11 Jul 2018

Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: HMRC’s appeal succeeded. The European legislation allowed but did not oblige countries to introduce Group scheme. The UK scheme allowed the lead to reclaim on behalf of members, rather than creating the group as a quasi person, and that concept was an unnecessary complication. The VAT refund was due to the payer of the VAT, but the company had long since ceased to be a member of the group, and the group payer no longer represented or was agent for the claimant company.
Lord Mance, Lord Reed, Lord Carnwath, Lord Hodge, Lord Briggs
[2018] UKSC 35, 2018 SC (UKSC) 153, [2018] WLR(D) 443, 2018 SLT 1091, [2018] 4 All ER 817, [2018] 1 WLR 3803, 2018 GWD 23-297, [2018] STC 1556, [2018] BVC 34, [2018] STI 1415, UKSC 2016/0204
Bailii, Bailii Summary, WLRD, SC, SC Summary, SC Summary Video, SC 2018 Apr 11 am Video, Bailii 2018 Apr 11 pm Vid
Finance Act 2008 121, Value Added Tax Act 1994 43(1)
Scotland
Citing:
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Dec-2012
FTTTx VAT – Preliminary Issues; Fleming claims; time bar; group registration; effect of leaving group; effect of disbandment; whether timeous claim by a former member of group entitles the representative member . .
At UTTC – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs UTTC 8-Sep-2014
VAT – Fleming claims – Preliminary Issues – Time-bar: construction of VATA 1994, s. 80 – Entitlement: whether right to repayment assigned; whether right capable of assignation; VATA 1994, s. 43. . .
SCS Leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 24-Apr-2015
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). . .
Appeal from refusal of leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc and Revenue and Customs Against A Decision of and Refusal of Leave To Appeal By The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 26-May-2015
Extra Division, Inner House Court of Session – appeal from a decision of and refusal of leave to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) – reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs . .
Appeal from (SCS) – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v A Decision of The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 14-Jul-2016
Can the VAT group embodied in the appellant as representative member rely on those claims for repayment of VAT overpaid by the group, when the claims were made timeously but by another member of the VAT group rather than the representative member? . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Thorn Materials Supply Limited and Thorn Resources Limited HL 18-Jun-1998
When goods were purchased for resale to another company within the same VAT group but the purchasing company left that group before delivery, the entire transaction became a vatable supply. If there is an advance payment of less than the whole . .
Cited – Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Rank Group plc C-259/10 ECJ 10-Nov-2011
ECJ Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 13B(f) – Betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Mechanised cash bingo – Slot machines – Administrative practice . .
Cited – Fleming (T/A Bodycraft) v Revenue and Customs HL 23-Jan-2008
The transitional rules introducing time limits for failing to deduct VAT inputs made insufficient allowance for the decisions in Marks and Spencer and Grundig.
Held: Lord Hope said: ‘To be compatible with EU law, taxpayers were entitled to be . .
Cited – Linneweber (Taxation) ECJ 17-Feb-2005
Sixth VAT Directive – Exemption for games of chance – Determination of the conditions and limitations to which the exemption is subject – Liability of games organised outside public casinos – Respect for the principle of fiscal neutrality – Article . .
Cited – Ampliscientifica Srl, Amplifin SpA v Ministero dell’Economia e delle Finanze, Agenzia delle Entrate (Taxation) ECJ 22-May-2008
ECJ Sixth VAT directive – Taxable persons Second subparagraph of Article 4(4) Parent companies and subsidiaries – Implementation by the Member State of the single taxable person scheme Conditions Consequences.
Cited – Revenue and Customs v BMW (UK) Holdings Ltd UTTC 19-Oct-2016
UTTC VAT – grouping – claim for overpaid tax where company leaves VAT group – correct entity to make claim – last representative member – first appeal (BMW/MGR) allowed; second and third appeals (Lloyds/Standard . .
Cited – Skandia America Corporation ECJ 17-Sep-2014
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – VAT group – Internal invoicing for services supplied by a main company with its seat in a third country to its branch belonging to a VAT group within a . .
Approved – Standard Chartered Plc and Others v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 31-Mar-2014
VAT – claims under s 80 VATA – VAT groups – Art 4(4), Sixth Directive (Art 11, Principal VAT Directive) – s 43 VATA – entitlement to claim – effect of individual taxable member joining a VAT group on VAT overpayments arising prior to that event – . .
Cited – Keighley, Maxsted and Co v Durant HL 20-May-1901
Lord Lindley said: ‘The explanation of the doctrine that an undisclosed principal can sue and be sued on a contract made in the name of another person with his authority is, that the contract is in truth, although not in form, that of the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.619947

MG Rover Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs and Others: FTTTx 31 Mar 2014

VAT – group registration – claim for overpaid output tax – company which made the sales in respect of which VAT overpaid leaving VAT group – whether claim rests with that company or with the representative member for the time being of the group – the former is correct answer for UK law – EU law does not need to be considered although is likely to give same result – appellant succeeds on preliminary issue
[2014] UKFTT 327 (TC), [2014] SFTD 1218
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.525281

Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Rank Group plc C-259/10: ECJ 10 Nov 2011

ECJ Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 13B(f) – Betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Mechanised cash bingo – Slot machines – Administrative practice departing from the legislative provisions – ‘Due diligence’ defence
C-259/10, [2011] EUECJ C-259/10, ECLI:EU:C:2011:719, [2011] ECR I-10947, [2012] CEC 884, [2011] STI 3045, [2011] BVC 389, [2012] STC 23
Bailii
European
Citing:
At VDT (1) – The Rank Group Plc v Revenue and Customs VDT 27-May-2008
VDT EXEMPT SUPPLIES – Gaming – Mechanised cash bingo under Gaming Act 1968 s.14 excluded from exemption – Similar supplies under s.21 exempt – Whether principle of fiscal neutrality infringed – Same company . .
At VDT (2) – Rank Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 19-Aug-2008
VDT COMMUNITY LAW – Fiscal neutrality – Exemption – Gaming – Provision of gaming machines excluded from exemption – Similar supplies under Part III of Gaming Act 1968 exempt – Whether principle of fiscal . .
At ChD – Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group ChD 8-Jun-2009
The court was asked whether the VAT treatment of mechanised cash bingo breaches the principle of fiscal neutrality: and the core issue on the appeal is whether the burden lay on Rank to adduce evidence to prove not only that there was a difference . .
At FTTTx – The Rank Group Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 11-Dec-2009
FTTTx Community Law – Fiscal neutrality – Exemption – Exclusion of provision of ‘gaming machines’ from exemption – Whether taxed machines similar to exempt machines – Relevance of regulatory regime – TNT [2009] . .
See Also – Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs v Rank Group plc C-260/10 ECJ 10-Nov-2011
ECJ Taxation – Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 13B(f) – Betting, lotteries and other forms of gambling – Principle of fiscal neutrality – Mechanised cash bingo – Slot machines – Administrative practice . .

Cited by:
At ECJ (2) – HMRC v The Rank Group Plc UTTC 4-Oct-2012
Taxation – whether gaming or betting and the different VAT Treatment of newer gaming machines. . .
At ECJ (2) – HM Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc CA 30-Oct-2013
The tax payer had sought repayment of sums of VAT charged to a particular form of gaming, saying that the rules infringed the principles of fiscal neutrality under European law. HMRC now appealed against a finding that the machines were exempt from . .
At ECJ (2) – Revenue and Customs v The Rank Group Plc SC 8-Jul-2015
The question raised by this appeal is whether, during the period 1 October 2002 to 5 December 2005, the takings on a particular category of gaming machines operated by the appellants were subject to VAT. The answer depends on whether the takings . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.448353

Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 19 Dec 2012

FTTTx VAT – Preliminary Issues; Fleming claims; time bar; group registration; effect of leaving group; effect of disbandment; whether timeous claim by a former member of group entitles the representative member to repayment; assignation of claims; whether Fleming claim, capable of assignation, existed; the nature of such a claim; whether claim lay in restitution; whether right to repayment assigned; VATA 1994 ss43, 43B and 80; Finance Act 2008 s 121
[2013] UKFTT 792 (TC), [2013] STI 233, [2013] SFTD 381
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs UTTC 8-Sep-2014
VAT – Fleming claims – Preliminary Issues – Time-bar: construction of VATA 1994, s. 80 – Entitlement: whether right to repayment assigned; whether right capable of assignation; VATA 1994, s. 43. . .
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 24-Apr-2015
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). . .
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc and Revenue and Customs Against A Decision of and Refusal of Leave To Appeal By The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 26-May-2015
Extra Division, Inner House Court of Session – appeal from a decision of and refusal of leave to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) – reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs . .
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 14-Jul-2016
(Extra Division – Inner house) Reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs by former representative member of now dissolved VAT group. . .
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v A Decision of The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 14-Jul-2016
Can the VAT group embodied in the appellant as representative member rely on those claims for repayment of VAT overpaid by the group, when the claims were made timeously but by another member of the VAT group rather than the representative member? . .
At FTTTx – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.472785

Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs: SCS 14 Jul 2016

(Extra Division – Inner house) Reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs by former representative member of now dissolved VAT group.
[2016] ScotCS CSIH – 54, 2016 SC 843, 2016 SLT 873, [2016] BVC 27, 2016 GWD 22-418, [2016] STC 2492
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Dec-2012
FTTTx VAT – Preliminary Issues; Fleming claims; time bar; group registration; effect of leaving group; effect of disbandment; whether timeous claim by a former member of group entitles the representative member . .
At UTTC – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs UTTC 8-Sep-2014
VAT – Fleming claims – Preliminary Issues – Time-bar: construction of VATA 1994, s. 80 – Entitlement: whether right to repayment assigned; whether right capable of assignation; VATA 1994, s. 43. . .
SCS Leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 24-Apr-2015
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). . .
Appeal from refusal of leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc and Revenue and Customs Against A Decision of and Refusal of Leave To Appeal By The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 26-May-2015
Extra Division, Inner House Court of Session – appeal from a decision of and refusal of leave to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) – reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs . .

Cited by:
At SCS – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v A Decision of The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 14-Jul-2016
Can the VAT group embodied in the appellant as representative member rely on those claims for repayment of VAT overpaid by the group, when the claims were made timeously but by another member of the VAT group rather than the representative member? . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.578069

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Thorn Materials Supply Limited and Thorn Resources Limited: HL 18 Jun 1998

When goods were purchased for resale to another company within the same VAT group but the purchasing company left that group before delivery, the entire transaction became a vatable supply. If there is an advance payment of less than the whole price, a supply which would ordinarily be regarded as a single taxable transaction is treated as having taken place in two or more stages. The time of supply rules therefore provide for a partial supply, a supply taking place on one date and to some extent on another. Both supplies are of course of the same goods. There is not a supply of part of the goods, or an undivided share in the goods, on one date and the rest on another. The tax is not concerned to divide up the goods because it is levied not upon the goods themselves but upon their value.
Gazette 15-Jul-1998, Times 25-Jun-1998, [1998] UKHL 23, [1998] 3 All ER 342, [1998] 1 WLR 1106, [1998] STC 725
House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii
Value Added Tax Act 1983
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc v Her Majesty’s Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 22-May-2003
The landlord had elected to waive exemption to charging VAT on its lettings. The tenant relet the demised premises, but at first without charging VAT. It later charged VAT on the sublease, but the commissioners objected to the attempt of the . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.158954

Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs: SCS 24 Apr 2015

The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber).
[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 32, 2015 SC 595, [2015] BVC 21, 2015 SLT 281, 2015 GWD 14-240
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Dec-2012
FTTTx VAT – Preliminary Issues; Fleming claims; time bar; group registration; effect of leaving group; effect of disbandment; whether timeous claim by a former member of group entitles the representative member . .
At UTTC – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs UTTC 8-Sep-2014
VAT – Fleming claims – Preliminary Issues – Time-bar: construction of VATA 1994, s. 80 – Entitlement: whether right to repayment assigned; whether right capable of assignation; VATA 1994, s. 43. . .

Cited by:
SCS – Leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc and Revenue and Customs Against A Decision of and Refusal of Leave To Appeal By The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 26-May-2015
Extra Division, Inner House Court of Session – appeal from a decision of and refusal of leave to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) – reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs . .
SCS Leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 14-Jul-2016
(Extra Division – Inner house) Reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs by former representative member of now dissolved VAT group. . .
SCS Leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v A Decision of The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 14-Jul-2016
Can the VAT group embodied in the appellant as representative member rely on those claims for repayment of VAT overpaid by the group, when the claims were made timeously but by another member of the VAT group rather than the representative member? . .
SCS Leave – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.546808

Standard Chartered Plc and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 31 Mar 2014

VAT – claims under s 80 VATA – VAT groups – Art 4(4), Sixth Directive (Art 11, Principal VAT Directive) – s 43 VATA – entitlement to claim – effect of individual taxable member joining a VAT group on VAT overpayments arising prior to that event – effect of all the members of one VAT group joining a second VAT group on cessation of the first VAT group on VAT overpayments arising during the currency of the first VAT group – effect of company leaving the second VAT group on VAT overpayments arising during the currency of the second VAT group
Berner J said: ‘Under UK law, as set out in section 43 VATA, the concept of the single taxable person is properly implemented through the representative member. . . The representative member is not the agent or trustee of the constituent members of the group. It is . . the domestic law embodiment of the single taxable person’.
[2014] UKFTT 316 (TC), [2014] SFTD 1270
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Approved – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.525306

Skandia America Corporation (Advocate General’s Opinion): ECJ 8 May 2014

ECJ Opinion – Common system of value added tax – VAT Grouping – Internal Billing for services provided by a company with its main office in a third country to its branch belonging to a group VAT in a Member State – Character taxable or not services
Melchior Wathelet AG
C-7/13, [2014] EUECJ C-7/13, [2014] BVC 43
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Opinion – Skandia America Corporation ECJ 17-Sep-2014
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – VAT group – Internal invoicing for services supplied by a main company with its seat in a third country to its branch belonging to a VAT group within a . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.525451

Revenue and Customs v BMW (UK) Holdings Ltd: UTTC 19 Oct 2016

UTTC VAT – grouping – claim for overpaid tax where company leaves VAT group – correct entity to make claim – last representative member – first appeal (BMW/MGR) allowed; second and third appeals (Lloyds/Standard Chartered) dismissed
The Tribunal described the position of the representative member: ‘The representative member of section 43 must, in our view, be understood as a continuing entity (perhaps akin to a corporation sole whose role is fulfilled by whoever holds the relevant office at any time). Thus actions, liabilities and rights of an old representative member must be ascribed to the new representative member on a change of representative member.’
Warren J and Hellier J
[2016] UKUT 434 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.570431

Taylor Clark Leisure Plc and Revenue and Customs Against A Decision of and Refusal of Leave To Appeal By The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber): SCS 26 May 2015

Extra Division, Inner House Court of Session – appeal from a decision of and refusal of leave to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) – reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs
Lady Clark of Calton
[2015] ScotCS CSIH – 40, 2015 SLT 412, [2015] BVC 27, 2015 GWD 20-356
Bailii
Scotland
Citing:
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Dec-2012
FTTTx VAT – Preliminary Issues; Fleming claims; time bar; group registration; effect of leaving group; effect of disbandment; whether timeous claim by a former member of group entitles the representative member . .
At UTTC – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs UTTC 8-Sep-2014
VAT – Fleming claims – Preliminary Issues – Time-bar: construction of VATA 1994, s. 80 – Entitlement: whether right to repayment assigned; whether right capable of assignation; VATA 1994, s. 43. . .
SCS – Leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 24-Apr-2015
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). . .

Cited by:
Appeal from refusal of leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 14-Jul-2016
(Extra Division – Inner house) Reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs by former representative member of now dissolved VAT group. . .
Appeal from refusal of leave – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v A Decision of The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 14-Jul-2016
Can the VAT group embodied in the appellant as representative member rely on those claims for repayment of VAT overpaid by the group, when the claims were made timeously but by another member of the VAT group rather than the representative member? . .
Appeal from refusal of leave – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.547651

Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 8 Sep 2014

VAT – Fleming claims – Preliminary Issues – Time-bar: construction of VATA 1994, s. 80 – Entitlement: whether right to repayment assigned; whether right capable of assignation; VATA 1994, s. 43.
[2014] UKUT 396 (TCC), [2014] BVC 536, [2015] STC 223, [2014] STI 2977
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
At FTTTx – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 19-Dec-2012
FTTTx VAT – Preliminary Issues; Fleming claims; time bar; group registration; effect of leaving group; effect of disbandment; whether timeous claim by a former member of group entitles the representative member . .

Cited by:
At UTTC – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 24-Apr-2015
The applicant seeks leave to appeal against a decision of the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber). . .
At UTTC – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc and Revenue and Customs Against A Decision of and Refusal of Leave To Appeal By The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 26-May-2015
Extra Division, Inner House Court of Session – appeal from a decision of and refusal of leave to appeal by the Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) – reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs . .
At UTTC – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v HM Revenue and Customs SCS 14-Jul-2016
(Extra Division – Inner house) Reclaim of overdeclared VAT outputs by former representative member of now dissolved VAT group. . .
At UTTC – Taylor Clark Leisure Plc v A Decision of The Upper Tribunal (Tax and Chancery Chamber) SCS 14-Jul-2016
Can the VAT group embodied in the appellant as representative member rely on those claims for repayment of VAT overpaid by the group, when the claims were made timeously but by another member of the VAT group rather than the representative member? . .
At UTTC – Revenue and Customs v Taylor Clark Leisure Plc SC 11-Jul-2018
Several companies within a group paid VAT. Later the basis of charge to output VAT was revised, and a reclaim became due, but the VAT group had been dissolved. Could the appellant, former lead within the group now make the reclaim.
Held: . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 30 July 2021; Ref: scu.537627

Edgell v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Dec 2018

Vat – Registration : Late – appeal against decision to register and for assessment made under section 77 (4) VAT Act 1994 – jurisdiction – timing and best judgment – evidence to challenge decision and assessment – appeal allowed in part
[2018] UKFTT 710 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.632443

Nuffield Health v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 May 2013

FTTTx VAT – Whether provision of pharmaceutical supplies and/or supply of and surgical fitting of prosthesis to patients were part of a single exempt supply or zero-rated for the purposes of the legislation (Value Added Tax Act 1983) – If a single exempt supply whether the provision of drugs and prosthesis should nevertheless be zero-rated as a result of the application of the legislation and Talacre Beach Sales v Customs and Excise Cmmrs. (C-251/05)
[2013] UKFTT 291 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.513456

John Codonas Pleasure Fairs Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jul 2021

Application for permission to make a late appeal – ss 83F, 83G and 98 VAT Act 1994 – s 7 Interpretation Act 1978 – no deemed receipt of letter sent to HMRC – Appellant’s belief amounted to a reasonable excuse for failure to appeal in time but not for the entire length of the delay – permission refused
[2021] UKFTT 262 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 July 2021; Ref: scu.666239

Sibcas Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Vat – Exempt Supplies : Land): FTTTx 15 Jul 2016

VAT – were prefabricated temporary classrooms immovable property – is it the units or the building which is, or is not fixed to the ground and or easily dismantled and moved – the units – were they fixed to the ground – no – were they easily dismantled and moved – yes – appeal
[2016] UKFTT 502 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 24 July 2021; Ref: scu.567711

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: The right to appeal had not been abolished, and remained.
Lord Neuberger MR, Arden, Moses LJJ
[2012] EWCA Civ 1401, [2013] QB 860, [2013] STC 1557, [2012] WLR(D) 303, [2012] BVC 333, [2013] 2 WLR 1136, [2012] STI 3230
Bailii, WLRD
Finance Act 2008, Value Added Tax Ac t 1994 84(3)
England and Wales
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 . .
At VDT – Totel Ltd v Revenue Customs VDT 19-May-2006
VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – suspected carousel or MTIC fraud – input tax repayment withheld pending ECJ judgment in Optigen and others – input tax paid with repayment supplement shortly after release of . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.465475

Radio Popular (Judgment): ECJ 8 Jul 2021

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Directive 2006/112 / EC – Value added tax (VAT) – Exemptions – Article 135 (1) (a) – Concepts of’ insurance operations ‘and’ provision of services relating to these transactions carried out by insurance brokers and intermediaries ‘- Article 174, paragraph 2 – Right of deduction – Prorata of deduction – Extension of guarantee relating to household appliances and other articles in the field of data processing and telecommunication – Concept of ‘financial operations’
C-695/19, [2021] EUECJ C-695/19
Bailii
European

Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.664380

Shields and Sons Partnership v Revenue and Customs (VAT : Flat Rate Scheme for Farmers): UTTC 21 Dec 2017

VAT – Flat rate scheme for farmers – whether Art 296.2 of the Principal VAT Directive (Council Directive 2006/112/EC) provides an exclusive regime as to when farmers can be excluded from the flat rate scheme – whether farmers who are found to be recovering substantially more as a member of the Flat Rate Scheme than they would if they were registered for VAT constitute a category for the purposes of Art 296.2.
[2017] UKUT 504 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 July 2021; Ref: scu.665576

Scandico Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax): UTTC 7 Dec 2017

Value Added Tax – Purchase of Apple iPhones by Appellant without receiving VAT invoice – Whether HMRC’s refusal to accept other evidence, in the absence of valid VAT invoices, to constitute sufficient evidence of the supply of the phones to the Appellant was reasonable – approach to be adopted by First-tier Tribunal in such appeals – appeal dismissed.
[2017] UKUT 467 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 22 July 2021; Ref: scu.665575

Segler-Vereinigung Cuxhaven (Taxation – Reduced Rate of Vat Applicable To The Letting of Places On Camping or Caravan Sites – Judgment): ECJ 19 Dec 2019

Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 98 – Option for the Member States to apply a reduced rate of VAT to certain supplies of goods and services – Point 12 of Annex III – Reduced rate of VAT applicable to the letting of places on camping or caravan sites – Question of whether that reduced rate is applicable to the letting of boat moorings in a marina – Comparison with the letting of premises and sites for the parking of vehicles – Equal treatment – Principle of fiscal neutrality)
ECLI:EU:C:2019:1138, [2019] EUECJ C-715/18
Bailii
European

Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.665519

Revenue and Customs v Life Services Ltd (Value Added Tax): UTTC 18 Dec 2017

Exemption for welfare services in Item 9 Group 7 Sch 9 VATA 1994 – whether Item 9 incompatible with article 132 (1) (g) of the Principal Directive – no – whether legislation can be given a conforming construction – yes – whether taxpayer a state regulated private welfare institution and therefore entitled to the exemption – no.
[2017] UKUT 484 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 19 July 2021; Ref: scu.665573

Newell v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Jun 2021

VAT – Appellant makes only taxable supplies – whether receipt of subsidy ie outside the scope income meant that his recovery of input tax should be restricted – held no – appeal allowed
[2021] UKFTT 199 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 July 2021; Ref: scu.663767

ELS Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 3 Feb 2015

VAT- Judicial review- Construction of Business Brief 10/04- Did the claimant comply with BB10/04, alternatively, should BB10/04 be applied retrospectively- No on both counts- Permission to bring Judicial Review proceedings refused
[2015] STC 1386, [2015] BVC 508, [2015] UKUT 48 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.549068

Revenue and Customs v Infinity Distribution Ltd: UTTC 2 May 2015

UTTC Appeal against Lower Tribunal to strike out evidence served by HMRC as to the conviction of other companies and parties of participating in a Missing Trader Fraud – Burden of proof and weight to be given to such evidence – allegation of bad faith whether it imports allegation of dishonesty
[2015] UKUT 219 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 16 July 2021; Ref: scu.549099