Category: VAT

The Trustees of the Lyndon David Hollinshead SIPP and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 May 2009

FTTTx VAT – EXEMPT SUPPLY – Appellants granted a lease to various connected companies – Appellants contended that they provided facilities to the companies which was a standard rated supply – Appellants’ analysis flawed – their supply was a grant of legal interest of possession in a property which was exempt from VAT – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 92 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373666

Martin-Jenkins v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 13 May 2009

FTTTx Value added tax – whether goods fell to be zero-rated as goods intended for export to a place outside the member States supplied otherwise than to a taxable person to a person not resident in the United Kingdom – whether the Appellant was a person not resident in the United Kingdom at the time(s) of supply of the goods – held he was not – regulation 129 of the VAT Regulations 1995 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 99 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373656

Sophie Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 May 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Assessments under s.73(2) VATA 1994 – Time limit for making assessments – Date when evidence of facts sufficient in the Commissioners’ opinion to justify making assessment, came to their notice – S.73(6)(b) VATA 1994 – Assessments out of time – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 88 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373663

Mithras (Wine Bar) Ltd v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 May 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Best judgment – Restaurants (takeaway and eat in) – Whether agreement on zero/standard rated supplies pursuant to Reg.67(1) VAT Regs – Yes – Whether two days invigilation sufficient to make best judgment assessment – Yes – Appeal partly allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 83 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373658

Hajishoreh (T/A Pizza 1) and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 6 May 2009

FTTTX VALUE ADDED TAX – assessments – dishonest evasion – take away food outlets – test purchases, cashing up and analysis of Z-readings – conclusion that takings understated – assessments made to recover tax – one business unregistered – whether registration threshold exceeded – yes – whether assessments undermined by claims of errors, hoax calls and closure of nearby competitors – evidence of such factors tenuous – assessments upheld
DISHONESTY PENALTY – whether dishonesty established – yes – whether mitigation allowed by respondents adequate – yes – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 90 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373644

Giles v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 May 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – company liable to a penalty for dishonest evasion of VAT under s.60 VATA – penalty proposed to be recovered from the Appellant (as a ‘named officer’) under s.61 VATA – dishonesty on the part of the Appellant admitted – decision to apportion the whole of the penalty to the Appellant disputed – Appellant submitted on the facts that other directors of the company had knowledge of the dishonesty – that submission rejected – held that the Appellant’s dishonesty rendered him liable to the penalty in any event – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 109 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373643

Jeffery (T/A Jeffery-Ryde) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 May 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Default Surcharge – Late filing of return resulting in part from various changes of address and the failure to receive the Return Form – Inadequate advice given to the trader by his regular contact in the Debt management section of HMRC – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 103 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373647

Drosden Plantruck Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 May 2009

FTTTx VALUE ADDED TAX – appeal against refusal of request by Appellant to retrospectively amend the effective date of voluntary registration – error by Appellant on application form for registration – schedule 1, para 9 VATA 1994, Regulation 111(2) VAT Regulations 1995 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 115 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373639

Burke v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 5 May 2009

FTTTx VAT – EXEMPT SUPPLIES – HEALTH AND WELFARE – Whether Intense Pulse Treatment (permanent removal of unwanted hair) constituted medical or surgical treatment – No – breach of fiscal neutrality – No – Appeal dismissed – Item 4 Group 7 Schedule 9 VAT Act 1994.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 87 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373634

Cannon Express and Logistics Limited v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 May 2009

FTTTx VAT – ASSESSMENT – FLAT RATE SCHEME – Appellant traded as courier – unaware of the change in the flat rate scheme from April 2004 – continued to apply the previous rate resulting in an under-payment of VAT – No deliberate attempt by the Appellant to avoid its responsibilities – Appellant believed that HMRC partly to blame for the default – no substantive challenge to the legality of the assessment – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 116 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373636

Lower Mill Estate Limited and Another v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Apr 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Land and Property – Supply of holiday home – Whether separate supplies of land and construction services – Zero-rated or standard rated – Group 5, Sch 8 VATA 1994 – Whether abusive practice – Yes – transaction redefined as one supply – Standard rated – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 38 (TC), [2009] STI 1937

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373617

McKenna v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 8 Apr 2009

FTTTx VAT – Notice of Assessment – Appellant farmer – legitimate user of rebated diesel fuel – road vehicle detected with rebated fuel in running tanks – audit exercise – availability of invoices or receipts to establish purchases of Derv in Republic of Ireland – records not kept – Notice of Assessment – gaps in analysis for audit purposes – appeal – explanation forthcoming – assessment adjusted downwards – appeal allowed to that extent

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 41 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373621

Royal National Lifeboat Institution v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 7 Apr 2009

FTTTx VAT -zero rating – Article 148(d) of the Principal VAT Directive – services which meet the direct needs of vessels used for rescue or assistance at sea -meaning of ‘direct needs’- whether alterations or repair and maintenance services for lifeboat stations and other equipment meet the direct needs of lifeboats.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 39 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373628

T Singh Limited v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Apr 2009

FTTTX Value added tax – whether assessment made to best judgement – s 73(1) VATA 1994 – retail scheme – application of direct calculation scheme 1 – use of mark-ups to determine expected selling prices – adjustment of expected selling prices to take account of wastage and loss of stock – time limit for making assessment – s 77(1)(a) VATA 1994 – assessment made to best judgement but reduced by application of three year ‘capping’ rule – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 37 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373631

IC Blue Ltd v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Custom: FTTTx 8 Apr 2009

FTTTX VALUE ADDED TAX- import VAT – Simplified Import VAT Accounting (‘SIVA’)- trader refused entry into scheme – business did not satisfy financial viability as net assets less than average VAT liability – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 40 (TC), [2009] UKFTT 00018 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.373613

QSR Ltd (T/A First Taste) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 4 Apr 2006

VALUE ADDED TAX- zero rating – supplies of sandwiches and cold food to offices and within units in multi-occupancy buildings – VATA Schedule 8 Group item 1 – whether supplies made ‘in the course of catering’ or ‘ food for human consumption’ – meaning of ‘catering’ and exceptions – supplies not made in the course of catering as to sandwiches and cold food – yes as to business lunches – whether the food to be consumed ‘on the premises’ – Note (3) to item 1 -food not consumed on premises – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2006] UKVAT V19528

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.241235

Volkswagen Financial Services UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Vat – Zero-Rating : Food, Etc): FTTTx 9 Nov 2018

VAT – whether the margin scheme applies to sales of vehicles made by a financier following the recovery of possession of the vehicles on the termination of hire purchase transactions – if not, whether the sales are treated as neither supplies of goods nor services under article 4(1)(a) of the Value Added Tax (Cars) Order 1992/3122 – compatibility of the exclusion from this article under article 4(1AA) of that order with EU law – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 663 (TC), [2019] SFTD 201, [2018] STI 2386

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.632420

Gardner v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Jan 2014

FTTTx VALUE ADDED TAX – recoverable input tax – whether tax in dispute was referable to cost components of the appellant’s business – found on the evidence that some but not all of the tax claimed for repayment was so referable – appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 82 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 03 August 2022; Ref: scu.521692

Re T H Knitwear (Wholesale) Ltd: CA 1988

Subrogation is a remedy, not a cause of action. Subrogation of Customs and Excise to a creditor’s right of proof in the winding up of a supplier was refused as it would have been contrary to the statutory scheme for the administration of VAT.

Judges:

Slade LJ

Citations:

[1988] Ch 275

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – CTI Group Inc v Transclear Sa Comc 14-Sep-2007
The parties had contracted for the sale of concrete. The buyers appealed findings by an arbitrator that the contracts were both frustrated for the inability of the seller to complete after the intervention of a company with an effective monopoly, . .
Cited – In re Nortel Companies and Others SC 24-Jul-2013
The court was asked as to the interrelationship of the statutory schemes relating to the protection of employees’ pensions and to corporate insolvency.
Held: Liabilities which arose from financial support directions or contribution notices . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Litigation Practice, VAT

Updated: 31 July 2022; Ref: scu.259368

Hooper v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Apr 2009

FTTTx VAT – Late registration – Whether a partnership existed between the appellants which the Commissioners could require to be registered – evidence that the appellants had represented to the Inland Revenue for income tax purposes that they were in partnership and that accounts had been drawn up on that basis – Found as a fact that a partnership existed and was not a sham even though motivated only by a wish to gain an income tax advantage – Appeal dismissed – Penalty for late registration further mitigated to a nominal amount (andpound;50)

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 74 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373611

Howe v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Apr 2009

FTTTx VAT – Late registration – Assessments and penalty – Hairdresser operating ‘chair rental’ scheme – Registration and assessments based on direct tax information – Appeal heard in the absence of the Appellant – Application for adjournment refused but direction made that new evidence and submissions would be considered by the Tribunal if received from the Appellant within 28 days of the release date of this Decision – Failing that the appeal would stand dismissed without a further hearing

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 73 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373612

Cardinal Entertainments Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Apr 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Requirement for security – para. 4(2),(4), Sch. 11, VATA 1994 – connection of control, trade and website address established between the Appellant company and other companies with a history of VAT default and insolvency in the local area – held, requirement for security had not been shown to be unreasonable – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 72 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373600

Aslam and Another (T/A Ramzan Foodstore) v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 14 Apr 2009

FTTTx S73 Assessment: Partnership; one partner bankrupt; appeal proceeding in name of one partner only; repayment claims credibility check; mark-ups on fast selling lines not in line with expected outcomes; local convenience store; unlikely patterns of trading; no adherence to any accepted retail scheme; assessment upheld.

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 48 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373596

Garsington Opera Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Apr 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Input tax – Attribution of input tax – Opera Company making both exempt and taxable supplies – Company makes exempt supplies of tickets and taxable supplies of sponsorship rights, programmes, CDs etc. to public and makes taxable supplies of productions to outside concert hall – Company pays input tax when obtaining the production inputs required to make the opera productions presented as part of season – Whether input tax on production inputs deductible – Yes – Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, SI 1995/2518 reg 101(2)(b) and (d)

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 77 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373609

Fantastic Illuminations Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 24 Apr 2009

FTTTx VAT – Default surcharge – Electronic payment of tax received one day after the due date – whether the payment was made ‘at such a time and in such a manner that it was reasonable to expect that it would be received by the Commissioners’ in time – held that it was – Appeal allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKTFF 60 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373608

Dudman Group Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 17 Apr 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Default surcharge – First default occasioned by late refusal of bank to advance monies following a long, and initially encouraging, negotiation – second default occasioned by CHAPS payment being late on account of the failure to note that 7 May 2007 was a Bank holiday – First appeal allowed and second appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 52 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373607

Drury v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 16 Apr 2009

FTTTX Value added tax – late registration – exception from registration -Commissioners not satisfied that value of supplies in following year would not exceed deregistration threshold – whether Commissioners had to be satisfied by reference to evidence as at date taxpayer liable to be registered – yes – para. 1(1) and para. 1(3), Schedule 1 VATA 1994 – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 50 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373606

Connell v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 26 Mar 2009

FTTTx Misdeclaration penalty – no appeal against assessment – transfer of land as a going concern – failure of accountants to notify and elect on time – Vat chargeable – no reasonable excuse – mitigation of 70% allowed by Customs – mitigation of 100% allowed by tribunal – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 34 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373584

Cable and Wireless Plc v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 27 Mar 2009

FTTTx Value Added Tax – Whether the Appellant’s late claim for input tax, initially deducted in its Return, but later recovered by HMRC under an assessment, is a claim for input tax under Regulation 29 (1) of the 1995 VAT Regulations or a claim under section 80(1B) of the VAT Act 1994 for the recovery of wrongly paid VAT – whether the decision in Fleming (trading as Bodycraft) v. HMRC, that the imposition of a three-year time limit for the purpose of making claims under Regulation 29 could not be invoked against those with pre-existing claims, applied to inputs incurred and invoiced in April 1997 if the trader’s VAT period ended after 1 May 1997 such that the inputs could not, at 1 May 1997, actually be claimed – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2009] UKFTT 32 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Vat

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.373582

Penny v Revenue and Customs: VDT 23 Sep 2008

VDT DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Appellant one day late with his payment – Appellant blameworthy for the default – failed to give priority to his VAT affairs – did not make enquiries with his bank about timescales and cut off time for electronic payments – chose not to reclaim VAT as input tax – benefitted from concession not to enforce surcharges of less than andpound;400 – no reasonable excuse – payment not dispatched in time – ten per cent surcharge proportionate to the Appellant’s transgression – Appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2008] UKVAT V20813

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 July 2022; Ref: scu.301790

Kids Church v Customs and Excise: VDT 16 May 2003

CONSTRUCTION – Charity constructing self-contained building within derelict warehouse for carrying on its charitable activities – Described by trustee as ‘internal annexe’ – Advised by Commissioners Advisory Service that construction supplies zero rated – Commissioners rule that supplies standard rated – Access to building through walls of warehouse – Whether ‘annexe’ – VATA 1994, Sch 8, Gp 5, Item 2, Nn (6), (16), (17)

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18145

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.221164

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

Citations:

[2015] EUECJ C-144/13, [2015] STC 1133, ECLI:EU:C:2015:116, [2015] BVC 18, C-154/13, C-160/13

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2006/112

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – VDP Dental Laboratory v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 4-Sep-2014
ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Taxation – VAT – Exemption of acquisitions of goods- Article 140 a) and b) of Directive 2006/112 / EC – Exemption of imports of goods – Article 143 a) of Directive 2006 / 112 / – . .

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

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.640868

London Cars Holdings Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 May 2014

VAT – best judgment assessment – was it reasonable – yes – was there a taxable supply by the taxpayer to self-employed minicab drivers in respect of the provision of two-way radios and bookings in exchange for ‘circuit fees’ – yes – had output tax been charged on this supply – no – amount of assessment upheld – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 484 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.526842

Butt v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 May 2014

Application by Appellant in respect of an appeal against a penalty issued under section 61 VATA 1994 – whether Respondent’s case has no reasonable prospect of succeeding – application refused.

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 490 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.526799

Mesfin v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 20 May 2014

Value Added Tax – Calculation of VAT for back periods during which the Appellant had not been registered, but should have been registered according to HMRC – Penalties – Appeal allowed in part

Citations:

[2014] UKFTT 499 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.526847

Watermargin (Portsmouth) Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 12 Jan 2012

FTTTx Value added tax – security for the revenue – VATA 1994 Sch 11 para 4(2)(a) – extent required of commissioners’ enquiries – whether outcome inevitably the same despite errors – need for fuller disclosure of reasons – appeal dismissed

Judges:

Judge Malachy Cornwell-Kelly

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 44 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.450844

Smalley v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Feb 2011

VAT – INPUT TAX – Appellant claimed VAT on certain items of expenditure – was the expenditure incurred in the furtherance of a business carried on by the Appellant – no business carried on but if there was no clear nexus between the expenditure and the business – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 134 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.442896

Commission v France (Taxation): ECJ 6 May 2010

Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations VAT Directive 2006/112/EC Article 98(1) and (2) Supply of services by undertakers Application of a reduced rate to the service involving transportation of a body by vehicle.

Citations:

C-94/09, [2010] EUECJ C-94/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.410786

Finanzamt Dusseldorf-Sud v Salix Grundstucks-Vermietungsgesellschaft: ECJ 4 Jun 2009

ECJ Sixth VAT Directive Second and fourth subparagraphs of Article 4(5) Option of Member States to consider activities of bodies governed by public law exempted under Article 13 and Article 28 of the Sixth Directive as activities of public authorities Rules governing exercise of that option Right to deduct Significant distortions of competition.

Citations:

C-102/08, [2009] EUECJ C-102/08

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347052

RLRE Tellmer Property sro v Financni ‘editelstvi v Usti nad Labem: ECJ 11 Jun 2009

ECJ Preliminary references – VAT Exemption for lettings of immovable property – Cleaning of common parts related to the letting – Ancillary supplies.

Citations:

C-572/07, [2009] EUECJ C-572/07, [2009] STC 2006, [2009] STI 1886

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Cited – Baxendale Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 4-Jul-2013
FTTTx PROCEDURE – striking out of proceedings – whether appellants’ case had a reasonable prospect of succeeding – abuse of process – whether Court of Appeal decision in David Baxendale was per incuriam or . .
Cited – Baxendale Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 4-Jul-2013
FTTTx PROCEDURE – striking out of proceedings – whether appellants’ case had a reasonable prospect of succeeding – abuse of process – whether Court of Appeal decision in David Baxendale was per incuriam or . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

European, VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.347051

Industrial Therapy Organisation (Bristol) Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 16 May 2003

DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Reasonable excuse – Charity training and employing people with learning difficulties – Costs of running charity met from sales and grants from Employment Service and local government – Introduction of minimum wage greatly increased wages – Coincided with substantial reduction in grants – Underlying cause of insufficiency of funds – Whether reasonable excuse – Appeal allowed – VATA 1994, ss 59(1), (7), 71(1)(a)

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18147

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.221163

Roberts (T/A Languages Direct) v Customs and Excise: VDT 16 May 2003

DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Reasonable excuse – Insufficiency of funds – Appellant’s customers included foreign embassies, NHS trusts, local government, Immigration Advisory Service – Invoices paid months or as much as year overdue – Serious effect on cash flow causing insufficiency of funds – Whether reasonable excuse – appeal allowed in part – VATA 1994, ss 59(7)(b), 71(1)(a)

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18146

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.221166

Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: HL 11 Mar 1999

Where a body regulated a profession by virtue of a statutory regime, the fees charged by that body to its members were not subject to VAT. Promoting and supervising professional standards is not an ‘economic activity’ within the meaning of the Act.

Citations:

Times 29-Mar-1999, Gazette 19-May-1999, [1999] UKHL 19; [1999] 2 All ER 449; [1999] 1 WLR 701

Links:

House of Lords, House of Lords, House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 4

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.135126

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v British Telecommunications Plc: HL 11 Feb 1999

The cost of the delivery of a quantity of new cars from the factory or depot to the purchaser is incidental and ancillary to the supply of the cars themselves, and the VAT on delivery charges was not reclaimable by the purchasing company as Input Tax. The sale of a car and the delivery to the taxpayer’s premises did not constitute two distinct supplies for VAT purposes. All the circumstances must be considered, and looking at the transaction as a matter of commercial reality there was a single contract for a delivered car, and it was artificial to split the various parts of the transaction into different supplies for VAT purposes. The service of delivering the car was incidental or ancillary to the supply of the car, and it was irrelevant that the taxpayer could have made a different arrangement for delivery of the car by a transporter or by collecting the car. (Lord Hope) ‘This seems to me to be a good example of a transaction which involves the supply of both goods and services, which the court had in mind when it referred in [the Card Case] to a service which did not constitute for customers ‘an aim in itself, but a means of better enjoying the principal service supplies.” Referring to Madgett, Lord Hope said the relationship between the supplies of travel services and accommodation must be disproportionate if the transaction was to be regarded as comprising one supply. ‘ . . no single factor will provide the sole test as to whether the supply in question is a distinct and independent supply or is incidental or ancillary to another principal supply.’

Judges:

Lord Hope

Citations:

Gazette 14-Jul-1999, Times 05-Jul-1999, [1999] UKHL 3, [1999] 1 WLR 1376, [1999] AC 1376

Links:

House of Lords, Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax (Input Tax) Order 1992 (1992 No 3222)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Madgett and Baldwin (trading as Howden Court Hotel) ECJ 22-Oct-1998
The court considered the criteria for determining whether the provision to guests by a hotelier of travel services (and in particular transport to and from the hotel and excursions) constituted supply which was ancillary to the supply of . .
Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v British Telecommunications Plc CA 18-Mar-1998
The delivery of a quantity of cars is a separate supply from the purchases of the cars themselves and the VAT on the delivery charges is reclaimable as an input. . .
At first instance – Regina v Her Majesty’s Treasury ex parte British Telecommunications Plc Admn 14-Nov-1996
. .

Cited by:

Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Plantiflor Limited HL 25-Jul-2002
The company charged no VAT on its postage and packaging charged to mail order customers. The company had described it as an advance of the sums to be charged by Parcelforce.
Held: There was no separate contract between the end customer and . .
Cited – College of Estate Management v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 13-Nov-2003
The college appealed a finding that the supply of course manuals to its students was part of its exempt rather than zero-rated supply.
Held: ‘Once it is decided that there is a single supply from an economic view which should not be . .
Cited – College of Estate Management v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 11-Aug-2004
When offering courses to distance learning students, the College offered materials for the courses. As part of the course this supply would be exempt, as books, the supply would be zero-rated, but the taxpayer would be able to reclaim its VAT . .
Cited – Beynon and Partners v Customs and Excise HL 25-Nov-2004
The House asked whether the personal administration of a drug such as a vaccine by an NHS doctor to a patient is a taxable supply for the purposes of value added tax. The provision of medical care in the exercise of the medical and paramedical . .
Cited – College of Estate Management v Customs and Excise HL 20-Oct-2005
The college supplied educational services by distance learning. The commissioner sought to argue that printe daterials supplied with the course were ancillary and did not have the same exemption form VAT.
Held: The supplies did benefit from . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 28 July 2022; Ref: scu.158986

VDP Dental Laboratory v Staatssecretaris van Financien: ECJ 4 Sep 2014

ECJ Advocate General’s Opinion – Taxation – VAT – Exemption of acquisitions of goods- Article 140 a) and b) of Directive 2006/112 / EC – Exemption of imports of goods – Article 143 a) of Directive 2006 / 112 / – Applicability of exemptions dentures whose supply is exempt pursuant to Article 132, paragraph 1, e) of Directive 2006/112 / EC – Deduction of input tax – Article 17, paragraph 2 a) as amended by Article 28f 1 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 / – Direct effect – Right to deduct input tax in case of transactions exempted by the law national in violation of EU law

Judges:

Juliane Kokott AG

Citations:

C-144/13, [2014] EUECJ C-144/13 – O, ECLI: EU: C: 2014, 2163

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Directive 2006/112

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

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

VAT

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.536494

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 sums paid to the public authority were so paid in fulfilment of an apparent statutory requirement to do so.

Judges:

Henderson J

Citations:

[2013] EWHC 665 (Ch), [2013] WLR(D) 125

Links:

Bailii, WLRD

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 80(7)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Principle Judgment – 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 . .

Cited by:

AT ChD (2) – 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 . .
At ChD (2) – 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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Equity

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.472042

Patel (T/A Cleggs Lane Service Station) v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 2 Mar 2012

VAT – retail schemes – Regulations 67-75 Value Added Tax Regulations 1995 – appellant incorrectly used Apportionment Scheme 1 – appellant ineligible to use Apportionment Scheme 1 – assessment of output tax on basis of Apportionment Scheme 1 – appeal allowed in principle

Citations:

[2012] UKFTT 169 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.462633

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

Judges:

Trstenjak AG

Citations:

C-591/10, [2012] EUECJ C-591/10 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

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

VAT

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.463183

JP Morgan Fleming, Claverhouse Investment Trust Plc and Another v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 10 Sep 2005

Matter referred to European Court

Citations:

[2011] UKFTT 68 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

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

VAT

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.442781

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 in VAT treatment between similar (and apparently competing) products but also that the difference did as a matter of fact actually affect competition.
Norris J approved the result that the machines were not gaming machines: ‘The argument proceeded on the footing that the element of chance had to be provided by ‘the machine’ and the problem lay in identifying ‘the machine’. The ‘element of chance’ is the determining event which governs the outcome of the game being played on the machine which has the slot in it and which the player is playing. Where the determining event is a random number there is I think no difference in principle between a human being selecting a numbered ball, an electric ball shuffler (such as that used in the National Lottery) producing a numbered ball or a microprocessor emitting a stream of numbers. It is a question of fact in each case whether that determining event is produced by ‘the machine’, and fine distinctions might have to be drawn. In my judgment the principle by reference to which those judgments have to be made is whether the outcome of the game may sensibly be regarded as determined by an external event which the machine records or is produced by the machine itself. Like the tribunal I would hold that the random generation of a number in a separate unit which serves various player terminals (which may themselves be running different games) is properly regarded as an external event and not one produced by the machine that the player is playing. Like the tribunal I do not think it is possible to elaborate further.’

Judges:

Norris J

Citations:

[2009] EWHC 1244 (Ch), [2009] BVC 598, [2009] STC 2304, [2009] STI 1884

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Gaming Act 1968

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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 . .

Cited by:

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

VAT, European

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346759

Savidge (KCS (T/A Car Spa) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 9 Mar 2009

VDT Deregistration – claim for backdating under Para.13(1) of the First Schedule to the 1994 Act to time turnover fell below the deregistration limit and not to the making of the application to deregister – claim that VAT charged and paid to Customs during the period before deregistration but while turnover was below the deregistration limit should be refunded – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2009] UKVAT V20972

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 26 July 2022; Ref: scu.346557