Category: VAT

Kahal Imrei Chaim Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 15 Jun 2006

VALUE ADDED TAX – Zero-rating – Value Added Tax Act 1994, Sch 8, Group 5, Building works – Supply of services in the course of construction of a new synagogue in garden of old synagogue and house next door – Whether zero-rated? – Held yes – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19625

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.242811

Khan v HM Revenue and Customs: CA 23 Feb 2006

The taxpayer appealed against the dismissal of his appeal from a decision of the commissioners. He said that he had been represented at the appeal by an accountant rather than by a lawyer because he was ignorant of a right to publicly funded assistance.
Held: Since the accountant could properly appear to represent his client, he could not claim to have been prejudiced. Although s60 of the 1994 Act did not create a criminal offence it did not follow that the PACE codes of practice did not apply when a taxpayer was served with a notice of the penalty investigation.

Judges:

Lord Justice Buxton Lord Justice Lloyd Lord Justice Carnwath

Citations:

[2006] EWCA Civ 89, Times 21-Mar-2006

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 60

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Legal Professions, Human Rights

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.239863

Town and County Factors Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 24 May 2006

PARTIAL EXEMPTION – whether racing and sporting information broadcast on screens at licensed betting offices is exclusively attributable to exempt over the counter betting, or is attributable to all the supplies, including gaming machine, made through the licensed betting offices – the latter – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19616

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.242794

Grenville Hotel v Revenue and Customs: VDT 13 Jun 2006

VAT – Requirement to give security – Para.4(2)(a), Sch. 11, VATA 1994 -whether requirement reasonable – whether quantum of security required reasonable – Held on the evidence that the requirement for security and quantum reasonable – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19624

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.242810

Yau and others v Customs and Excise: CA 3 Jul 2001

The Court considered the applicability of the European Convention of Human Rights to VAT and Excise procedures, namely whether or not the imposition by the Commissioners of Customs and Excise of (ostensibly civil) penalties for alleged dishonest evasion of tax pursuant to S.60(1) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 and s.8(1) of the Finance Act 1994 gave rise to criminal charges within the meaning of Article 6(1) of the ECHR, as each of the taxpayers contended.
Held: The Commissioners’ appeal succeeded: ‘The VAT penalty system is fair, beneficial to the taxpayer and in the public interest. The rights of the taxpayer are already adequately protected. It would be folly, in the name of an abstraction, to introduce a further unnecessary protection, whose practical consequence would be to impair the efficiency of the system at no advantage to the taxpayer.’

Judges:

Potter, Mance LJJ, Sir Martin Nourse

Citations:

[2001] EWCA Civ 1048, [2001] 4 All ER 687, [2001] HRLR 54, [2001] BVC 415, [2001] STI 1015, 3 ITL Rep 873, [2001] STC 1188, [2001] 1 WLR 2253, [2001] UKHRR 1341

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

European Convention of Human Rights, Value Added Tax Act 1994 60(1), Finance Act 1994 8(1)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Human Rights

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.201308

Munir (T/A Favourite Chicken) v Customs and Excise: VDT 27 May 2004

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – liability for registration – transfer of business as a going concern – business of transferee alleged to be distinct from previous business – partnership business continued by one former partner as sole proprietor – transferee liable to be registered irrespective of turnover of business since transfer – appeal against decision that transferee liable to be registered dismissed

Citations:

[2004] UKVAT V18612

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 09 August 2022; Ref: scu.199140

Amusement Solutions Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 21 Oct 2008

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – two coin-operated pool tables supplied by amusement company to be played by students at Huddersfield University Students’ Union – whether supply was made by amusement company or Union – if supply made by amusement company whether supply was an exempt supply – section 4 and schedule 9, group 10, item no. 3 VATA 1994 – Held that supply was made by amusement company and was not an exempt supply – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20838

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.301797

Leadx v Revenue and Customs: VDT 19 Dec 2008

VAT – EXEMPT SUPPLIES -CREDIT and INSURANCE – Appellant provided an open market for the selling and buying by brokers of leads on potential customers for credit and insurance – did the Appellant’s supplies constitute negotiation of credit? – no – the supplies could not be characterised as the granting or the negotiation of credit, and had no link with the negotiation of credit – did the Appellant’s supplies amount to related services performed by an insurance agent or broker? – no – the Appellant was not an insurance broker or agent – the Appellants supplies had no close nexus with insurance transactions – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20904

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.301878

Rainbow Pools London Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 11 Sep 2008

Value Added Tax – Supply of building materials under Item 4 of Group 5 of Schedule 8 to VAT Act 1994, and the definition of ‘building materials’ in paragraph 22 – Supply of retractable insulated covers for indoor swimming pools – Supply of moveable floors for indoor swimming pools – Appeal allowed as regards the covers and dismissed as regards the moveable floors

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20800

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 07 August 2022; Ref: scu.301792

Harris v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise: VDT 7 May 2003

ASSESSMENT – Bank statements reflected greater income than shown on returns – No explanation and no sales figures produced – Whether best judgment
COSTS – Previous hearing order made that Appellant pay – Respondents had applied for hearing in absence Appellant under Rule 26(1) Tribunal Rules 1986 – Statement of Case did not reflect true position – Previous order set aside

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18120

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.247563

Everard and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 12 Jun 2006

VAT – refund of tax to ‘do-it-yourself’ builders – building of extension – later decision to demolish house and build a new house within existing footprint – one wall and chimney stack retained – whether conditions for relief fulfilled – no – whether discretion exercisable by Tribunal – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19626

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.242808

Uddin (T/A Diwan-E-Am Restaurant) v Revenue Customs: VDT 26 May 2006

ASSESSMENT – Suppression of takings in restaurant – Test purchases and observations by Customs – Sales found not to have been recorded – Purchase invoices not recorded – No explanation offered by Appellant – Calculation of suppression rate revised and reduced twice – Whether assessment to Commissioners’ best judgment – Yes – VATA 1994 s73(1)
PENALTY – Dishonest conduct – Whether in the circumstances revealed by evidence, Appellant’s conduct dishonest – Yes – VATA 1994 s 60(1)

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19597

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.242795

The Sheiling Trust (Ringwood Waldorf School) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 27 Feb 2006

Value added tax – relevant charitable purpose– use of a building by a charity — whether the use of the building by a school was otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a building – whether the activity carried on by the school comprised a business for VAT purposes – no – whether charity entitled to reclaim input VAT on self-build construction – yes – Note (6) to Group 5 of Schedule 8, VATA 1994; s 35(1) VATA 1994 – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19472

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.239011

Alam v Revenue and Customs: VDT 14 Dec 2005

VDT ASSESSMENT – whether to best judgment – invoices revealing quantity of children’s clothing as a proportion of turnover – best judgment not in dispute – insufficient evidence to upset liability – assessment to best judgment – case dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19390

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.238074

Dolphin Fish Bar Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 24 Mar 2005

REGISTRATION – VAT-registered partnership business transferred to sole trader – Sole trader did not register for VAT – Appellant company subsequently ran same type of business from same premises – Whether transfer of business as going concern – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18993

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.225101

Robert Smith and Sons Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 6 Apr 2005

VDT VAT – motor dealer -application for recovery of output tax on demonstrator bonuses and on margin on sales of demonstration cars following ECJ decision in Marks and Spencer that retrospective introduction on three year cap on recovery claims contrary to effectiveness of EC Community rights and legitimate expectations – finding that appellant would not have made claim to recover tax overpaid on demonstrator bonuses and tax paid on sales of demonstration cars by 30 June 1997 – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19010

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.225154

ATM All Trade Maintence Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 5 Apr 2005

VAT – Notice of requirement to provide security – risk to the revenue – on independent review the amount of guarantee increased by the Reviewing Officer – phoenix company – reasonableness of decision considered – Human Rights Act raised by director and considered – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2004] UKVAT V19030

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.225131

Gray (T/A William Gray and Sons) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 7 Nov 2000

The trader carried on business as a builder both through a limited company and on his own account. He tried to apportion the businesses so that neither was registerable for VAT. In one period he exceeded the limit. He asked the commissioners to exercise their discretion not to register him retrospectively acknowledging that his turnover later returned to levels below the threshold. It was held that the Commissioners could only act on the basis of the facts as they would have appeared at the time he should have applied. The process was intended to be a speedy one, and was an estimate of future activity.

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2000

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 1 para 1 (3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.80989

Expert Witness Institute v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 12 Apr 2001

The 1990 Regulation, SI 1990 No 2854, should be construed in the light of the European Directive. The Institute was exempt from Value Added Tax. Its aims of promoting and supporting the proper administration of justice, and the early resolution of disputes, were sufficiently in the public interest, and so closely connected to the administration of justice to bring it within the section as amended by the regulation. The Directive did not require that the body should be altruistic, and it was not relevant that the decision might lead to other bodies also becoming exempt.

Citations:

Times 12-Apr-2001

Statutes:

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC on the harmonisation of laws relating to turnover taxes, Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 9 Group 9 para (e), Value Added Tax (Education) (No 2) Order 1994 (1994 No 2969)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Expert Witness Institute v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 12-Dec-2001
A not for profit institute whose stated aims were ‘supporting the proper administration of justice and the early resolution of disputes’ came within the terms of the Directive and was exempt from VAT. Article 13A(1)(l) provided for exemption for the . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Expert Witness Institute v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 12-Dec-2001
A not for profit institute whose stated aims were ‘supporting the proper administration of justice and the early resolution of disputes’ came within the terms of the Directive and was exempt from VAT. Article 13A(1)(l) provided for exemption for the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 06 August 2022; Ref: scu.80423

Euro Beer Distribution Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 Sep 2019

Vat – Compulsory Deregistration (Sch 1 para 13 VATA) – whether Appellant intending to make taxable supplies (Sch 1 para 9 VATA) – EXCISE DUTY – revocation of appellant’s approval under Warehousekeepers and Owners of Warehoused Goods Regulations 1999

Citations:

[2019] UKFTT 566 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.641364

Revenue and Customs v Iveco Ltd: UTTC 13 Jun 2016

UTTC VALUE ADDED TAX – whether section 80 VAT Act 1994 applies to claim to enforce directly effective right under article 11C(1) Sixth Directive to reduce taxable amounts to reflect rebates paid in periods before it was implemented in UK legislation – if so, whether claim made within time limit in section 80(4) – whether regulation 38 VAT Regulations 1995 can be adapted or moulded to allow adjustment to reflect reduction in taxable amounts at any time – whether FTT has jurisdiction to determine claim – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 263 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.567359

Revenue and Customs v Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine: UTTC 24 Jun 2016

VAT – partial exemption – CVCP Agreement between universities and HMRC – Fleming claim to recover residual VAT on overheads of academic departments – whether HMRC approved a new non – CVCP retrospective partial exemption special method (PESM) from 1973 to 1994- whether a combined PESM and business/non-business method was ultra vires – FTT held a new non-CVCP retrospective PESM had been approved and was not ultra vires – HMRC appeal to the Upper Tribunal – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 278 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.567358

Intelligent Managed Services Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 7 Jul 2015

UTTC VAT – whether transfer of a business to a company that was a member of a VAT group was a transfer of a going concern (TOGC) – after transfer supplies made only to other group company – art 5, Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1995 – s 43, VATA – Principal VAT Directive, Arts 11, 19 and 29

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 0341 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.553188

Lower Mill Estate v HMRC: UTTC 22 Dec 2010

UTTC Value Added Tax – Land and Property – Holiday home – Associated companies supplying land and building services – Nature of supplies – Whether separate supplies of land and construction services – Yes – Whether abusive practice – Halifax [2005] STC 919 considered – Single supply of completed holiday homes – No – Proper Comparator – Appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2010] UKUT B25 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.428184

HMRC v SL: UTTC 19 Nov 2009

UTTC ZERO-RATING – alterations to listed building – new building in the curtilage of listed building – planning permission that it ‘shall only be used for purposes either incidental or ancillary to the residential use’ of the main listed building – whether a prohibition on separate use (Note 2(c) VATA 1994 Sched 8 Group 6) – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKUT 244 (TCC), [2010] STC 486, [2010] BVC 1503, [2010] STI 555

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.428189

Hills and Another v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 25 Apr 2016

UTTC VALUE ADDED TAX – option to tax- whether supply of land taxable at standard rate because option to tax validly exercised – whether prior permission from HMRC required for late election – whether HMRC can validly dispense with this requirement for prior permission – paragraph 3 (9) and paragraph 30 Schedule 10 Value Added Tax Act 1994. Appeal against the decision: [2014] UKFTT 646 (TC)

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 189 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.567344

Grand Entertainments Company v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 3 May 2016

UTTC Claims for repayment of VAT – whether further claims for refunds were amendments to an earlier claim made within the time prescribed by s. 121 Finance Act 2008, or were separate claims out of time and barred by s. 80(4) Value Added Tax Act 1994 – held that the claims were separate claims and out of time – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2016] UKUT 209 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.567353

Wireless Wizards Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 26 Aug 2015

UTTC VALUE ADDED TAX – Missing Trader Intra-Community Fraud – whether taxable person should have known that its transactions were connected to fraud – whether deliberate failure to ask questions where taxable person aware of risk of fraud satisfies should have known test – Axel Kittel v Belgian State and Mobilx v HMRC considered – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 419 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.553199

Why Pay More for Cars Ltd v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 8 Sep 2015

VALUE ADDED TAX – Edwards v Bairstow – jurisdiction of Upper Tribunal – appeal against refusal of claim for repayment of overpaid VAT – whether FTT entitled not to find or infer that car dealer had accounted for VAT on bonuses paid by manufacturers to dealer on purchase of demonstrator and courtesy cars in claim periods – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2015] UKUT 468 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 05 August 2022; Ref: scu.553201

Copygene A v S (Taxation): ECJ 10 Sep 2009

ECJ Opinion – VAT Exemptions – Activities closely related to hospital and medical care undertaken by duly recognised establishments of a nature similar to hospitals or centres for medical treatment or diagnosis – Collection, transportation, analysis and storage of umbilical cord blood.

Citations:

C-262/08, [2009] EUECJ C-262/08 – O

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Opinion – Copygene A v S ECJ 10-Jun-2010
ECJ (Taxation) Sixth VAT Directive – Exemptions – Article 13A(1)(b) – Hospital and medical care – Closely related activities – Duly recognised establishments of a nature similar to hospitals or centres for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, VAT

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.374749

Phillips v Revenue and Customs: VDT 4 Apr 2006

VALUE ADDED TAX – flat rate schemes – discount of one per cent allowed in first year of registration – Appellant contending that he was advised to use flat rate scheme and take the discount even though he had already been registered for a year – assessment for under-paid tax – Appellant accepting that not entitled to discount but complaining of misdirection – matter not within tribunal’s jurisdiction – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19519

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.240281

AT Warner Sons Ltd v Revenue Customs: VDT 1 Jun 2006

DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Manageress of public house had breakdown – Owner very concerned and distracted – Payment sent off nine days late – Locum put in place – Arrangements made in time with bank to meet cheque – Held reasonable excuse for late payment – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19605

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.242800

Banbury Visionplus Ltd v HM Revenue and Customs: ChD 9 May 2006

Appeal against termination of special exemption method.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal was dismissed. The VAT tribunal’s jurisdiction was unlimited. No limitation was implied by the wording of the section. The tribunal’s discretion had only to be exercised so as to achieve the statutory objective, There was nothing to exclude the jurisdiction of the tribunal to decide whether a particular method would achieve the statutory objective.

Judges:

Etherton J

Citations:

Times 12-Jun-2006, [2006] EWHC 1024 (Ch), [2006] STC 1568

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 83(e)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Banbury Visionplus Ltd and others v Revenue and Customs VDT 26-Oct-2005
VALUE ADDED TAX – partial exemption – opticians’ stores – special methods based on floor area agreed in 1997 and 1998 – special methods terminated by the Respondents in 2004 so that standard method applied – whether jurisdiction of the Tribunal is . .

Cited by:

Cited – Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 5-Apr-2017
The court considered the VAT treatment general business overheads of a vehicle financing company, and in particular the ‘partial exemption special method’ (‘PESM’) agreed with HMRC for the valuation of the proportion of residual input tax . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.241577

Charterhall Marketing Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 19 Apr 2005

Zero Rating; single or multiple supplies; printed materials consisting of letter and leaflets, and envelope; mail pack; whether ‘letter’ truly a letter; whether one or more documents ancillary to another; Value Added Tax Act 1994 Schedule 8 Group 3 Item 1

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19050

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.225137

Blackpool Pleassure Beach (Holdings) Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 12 Apr 2005

VAT – amusement park operator – market-value vouchers – whether voucher offer by appellant to selected pairs of visitors to one park on payment of pounds 52 for two vouchers including voucher claimed by appellant to be market-value voucher worth pounds 16 for wristband for a single person at another park made for consideration – if so, whether vouchers face-value vouchers or supplied for consideration – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19014

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 August 2022; Ref: scu.225132

First Choice Holidays (Judgment): ECJ 19 Jun 2003

Europa Sixth VAT Directive – Article 26(2) – Special scheme for the taxation of travel agents and tour operators – Taxable amount – Margin – Total amount to be paid by the traveller.
Holiday purchasers paid a discounted sum to the travel agent, but the travel agent paid on to the tour operator the full amount stated in the brochure.
Held: VAT was payable on the full amount. The agents were free to charge a lesser amount, and would receive a standard ten per cent of the total price by way of commission.

Citations:

C-149/01, Times 11-Jul-2003, [2003] EUECJ C-149/01

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.184160

Temple Finance Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Jan 2016

VAT – whether supplies for a consideration below ‘open market value’ – whether ‘standard method override’ set out in Regulations 107A to F of the Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 should be applied – whether assessments ‘global assessments’ and whether made in time – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2016] UKFTT 41 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.559915

Sumitomo Mitsui Banking Corporation Europe Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Jun 2009

FTTTx VAT – SERVICES – PLACE OF SUPPLY – Appellant supplied management and corporate services to parent company under service level agreement – were the services principally and habitually those of a consultant and consultancy bureaux – No – place of supply of services United Kingdom – Appeal dismissed – position reserved on costs.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 121 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373695

Purple Parking Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Jul 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – whether the provision of off-airport long-term parking facilities, coupled with the provision of ‘courtesy’ buses is one supply or two – preliminary issue, preceding contention that the exclusion from the zero-rated transport category of airport bus services to long-term car parks is an illegal breach of the principle of ‘fiscal neutrality’ – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 152 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373707

APS-Centriline Ltd and Others (T/A William N Lewis Associates) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 3 Jul 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Input tax – Whether evidence of supplies as invoice and of payment of VAT on invoiced supplies sufficient to meet requirements of sections 26 and 26A of Value Added Tax 1994 – No

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 149 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373698

Lancster (T/A Airport Cards) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Jul 2009

FTTTx OUTPUT TAX – taxi firm sole proprietor – not including on returns VAT on drivers’ commission and own driving because tax had not been collected – whether HMRC should have given advice – also quantum of assessments in dispute -whether proprietor’s turnover included drivers’ takings as well as his own – appeal dismissed on all points – direction made as to change in tribunal Rules on 1 April 2009 by S1 2009 No.273 (L.1.)

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 155 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373703

Late Editions Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jul 2009

FTTTx VAT – Input tax – MTIC fraud – Appellant exporting eight consignments of mobile phones all acquired from same trader – All traced back to defaulting traders – Whether Appellant know or should have known – Treatment of hearsay evidence by Customs – Relevance of fact that Kittel ECJ not reflected in UK statute – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 166 (TC), [2010] STI 836, [2009] SFTD 488

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373704

Seatechs Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Jun 2009

FTTTx VAT – DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Appellant assumed no return necessary because of its application to change accounting date – no reasonable excuse – second surcharge Appellant alleged that the return was dispatched in time – no reliable evidence of time and manner of posting – return incomplete – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 146 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373693

PD Concepts Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 9 Jun 2009

FTTTx Appeal against the respondents’ decision given by a letter dated 14 May 2007 by which they informed the appellant that they refused to pay or credit andpound;350,323.75 being part of a slightly larger sum claimed by the appellant as input tax for the three month prescribed accounting period ending 31 July 2006. That input tax was claimed in respect of three transactions in which the appellant sold mobile telephones to buyers established in Member States of the EU though, as will be seen later in this decision, in two cases the respondents dispute that the goods were removed to another Member State. The respondents allege that the right to deduct input tax was lost by the appellant because the transactions were connected with fraud and the appellant either knew or should have known of that fact.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 127 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373691

March v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 May 2009

FTTTx VAT – FLAT RATE SCHEME – denial of input tax claim on construction costs of a riding arena – Appellant not entitled to recover input tax under flat rate scheme except on capital expenditure goods exceeding andpound;2,000 – was the denial of the input tax in the correct form – yes – were the disputed supplies goods or services – services except haulage which was part of a single supply of goods – was the decision to refuse retrospective withdrawal reasonable – no – Appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 94 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373655

S and I Electronics Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 May 2009

FTTTx VAT – Input tax – MTIC Fraud – Incorporation of Kittel into domestic law – Effect of ECHR decision in Bulves v Bulgaria on domestic application of Kittel test – Does ECA 72 prevail over HRA 98? – Whether knowledge of a particular fraud is required – Whether the tax loss is established only if there is an unpaid assessment – Whether all input tax or only that evaded should be denied – Whether discrimination in HMRC’s approach is relevant to test
VAT – Input tax – MTIC Fraud – Whether connection to fraud – Whether fraud – Whether trader knew or should have known of fraud: whether trader took all reasonable precautions – No – Whether trader would have discovered fraud if he had taken all reasonable precaution – Yes
VAT – Input tax – MTIC Fraud – Contra trade – Need of connection between the clean and dirty chain in the form of some arrangement linking them

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 108 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373660

Barnett and Another (T/A Burghill Valley Golf Club) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Jun 2009

FTTTx VAT – ASSESSMENT – Appellants ran a golf club – set up two companies to make golfing supplies – Appellants acted as landlord and manager – companies in voluntary liquidation – Who made the golfing supplies? – the Appellants – Appeal dismissed – no adjudication on alternative dispute (doctrine of abuse)

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 119 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373672