Category: VAT

PC Construction Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 20 Nov 2006

INPUT TAX – purchase by company of motor car – whether intended for use exclusively for the purposes of the business – whether intention on acquisition to make available for private use – VAT (Input Tax) Order 1992 Art 7(2E) and (2G) – appeal dismissed
[2006] UKVAT V19899
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.247549

Home Or Away Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 15 Jun 2003

PROCEDURE – Evidence – Witness summons granted to Commissioners against appellant’s accountant – Application by accountant to set aside summons – Conceded that no professional privilege arises – Whether accountant protected by anything analogous to privilege – Whether statement of policy in public notice is agreement binding upon commissioners – Whether summons ought to be set aside on ground that accountant will be forced to give evidence in breach of confidence – VAT Trib Rules 1986, r 22(6), (8) – Public Notice 700/47/93
PROCEDURE – Direction that Commissioners should serve witness statements by given date – Failure by Commissioners to serve witness statement of Appellant’s accountant – No witness statement in existence – Whether Appellant prejudiced thereby – Whether ground for setting aside witness summons – Application dismissed
EVIDENCE – witness summons granted to Commissioners against Appellant’s accountant – Application by accountant to set aside – Whether summons should be set aside on ground that account will be forced to give evidence in breach of confidence – whether Commissioners contractually bound by Public Notice 700/47/93 to treat client’s communications to an accountant in same way as those to a solicitor – Application dismissed
HUMAN RIGHTS – Witness summons granted to Commissioners against Appellant’s accountant – No professional privilege arises – Whether breach of Article 6 of ECHR – Whether discrimination against Appellant on ground that no accountant has been compelled to give evidence in breach of confidence before – Whether discrimination in that a solicitor would be protected by privilege but not an accountant – ECHR Art 6, 14
[2003] UKVAT V18195
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.247575

Pacific Computers Limited v Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax – Preliminary Issue – Application for Tribunal To Allow Appeal Summarily): FTTTx 30 Mar 2021

VALUE ADDED TAX – preliminary issue – application for Tribunal to allow appeal summarily – alleged breach of Article 47 of Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU – right to a fair trial within a reasonable time – proceedings ongoing for over 13 years – appropriate remedy for breach of ‘reasonable time’ requirement – held: allowing the appeal ‘summarily’ not an appropriate remedy – held: ‘reasonable time’ requirement not itself breached – application refused
[2021] UKFTT 88 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 08 October 2021; Ref: scu.663667

FMC (Fabrics Maintenance Contractors) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax – Notice of Requirement To Provide Security): FTTTx 17 Jun 2021

Notice of requirement to provide security – whether the decision to require security of the specified amount was reasonable even though the director of the Appellant had no history of allowing companies of which he was a director to become insolvent whilst owing money to the Respondents and the Appellant had shown by its past actions that it took its tax obligations seriously and intended eventually to discharge its VAT arrears – yes – because persistent late payment by a taxpayer raises the risk that, despite its best intentions, the taxpayer will eventually be unable to pay its liabilities in full
[2021] UKFTT 233 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 October 2021; Ref: scu.663755

The Bridport and West Dorset Golf Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 1 Jun 2011

Sport and physical education – Exemptions – golf club green fees – members’ club charging green fees to non-members – whether within exemptions – Principal VAT Directive arts 132 – 134, VATA Sch 9 Group 10 Item 3 – domestic legislation failing to implement Directive correctly – supplies exempt – appeal allowed
[2011] UKFTT 354 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 06 October 2021; Ref: scu.443087

Eaton v Customs and Excise: VDT 8 Oct 2004

DEFAULT SURCHARGE – Shortage of funds – Office cleaning business – Proprietor cleaning windows – Accident forcing use of sub-contractors – Steptoe [1992] STC 757 applied – Appeal allowed in part
[2004] UKVAT V18791
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 06 October 2021; Ref: scu.216483

Gooch Technology Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Alcohol Trading): FTTTx 10 May 2021

VAT – alcohol trading – best judgment assessments carried no appeal right as no VAT returns had been submitted – appeal only against decision appellant should have been VAT registered – cash deposits into supplier’s bank account – appellant claiming to act as principal in purchasing and selling within a French bonded warehouse without an account at the warehouse – whether evidence showed supplies outside the UK.
[2021] UKFTT 149 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 01 October 2021; Ref: scu.663724

The Medical House Plc v Revenue and Customs: VDT 2 Nov 2006

VAT – preliminary point – whether tribunal should exercise its discretion to grant extension of time to appeal where input tax claim made by voluntary disclosure only in last accounting period before time barred and appeal itself made 15 months after disputed decision made – application refused
[2006] UKVAT V19859
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 30 September 2021; Ref: scu.246204

Euro Systems (Scotland) Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT: Whether Assessment To Best Judgment): FTTTx 29 Oct 2019

VAT – section 73 of Value Added Tax Act 1994 – whether assessment to best judgment – whether the quantum of the assessment to be varied – Tribunal’s appellate jurisdiction in relation to quantum under section 83 – Van Boeckel, Rahman and Mithras – methodology in quantifying shortfall – evaluation of evidence as alternative basis of assessment – whether duplication relevant – appeal allowed in part
[2019] UKFTT 663 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.646872

Lunn v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: VDT 20 Mar 2009

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – zero rating – alteration of listed building – whether residential dwelling can be both separate from and ancillary to another dwelling – conduct needed before award of indemnity costs appropriate – appeal allowed – VATA 1994 Schedule 8 Group 6, Item 2 Notes 1, 2 and 6
[2009] UKVAT V20981
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.346553

Yalegate Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 31 Oct 2006

VAT – SECURITY – Protection of Revenue – The Appellant company taking on the director and business of an insolvent company with VAT debts of in excess of pounds 350,000 – the size of security, although bearing no relationship to the Appellant’s existing VAT liability, was primarily based on the tax liability of the insolvent company – whether Respondents’ actions in requiring a security reasonable – Yes – was the size of the security proportionate to the risk – Yes – Appeal dismissed – VAT ACT 1994 Schedule 11 p 4(1).
[2006] UKVAT V19852
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 29 September 2021; Ref: scu.246190

South Wales Home Care Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 13 Jul 2005

VDT ASSESSMENT – Differences between turnover recorded in annual accounts and that declared in VAT returns – Difference explained as referable to exempt commissions received – No evidence produced by Appellant of any commission received
INPUT TAX – Expenditure on refurbishing business premises for new sauna and massage business – New business never carried on by Appellant – No evidence adduced that refurbishment was for purposes of trade to be carried on by Appellant
[2005] UKVAT V19170
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 27 September 2021; Ref: scu.229630

1St Contact Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Jan 2012

FTTTx VAT – recovery of input tax on exempt supplies pursuant to VATA s.26(2)(c) – Exempt supplies under VATA Schedule 9, Group 5, item 1 (‘The issue, transfer or receipt of, or any dealing with, money, any security for money or any note or order for the payment of money’) – Supply of foreign exchange services (FOREX) to persons, principally from Australia, New Zealand and South Africa, who are in the United Kingdom on a ‘working holiday’ or ‘overseas experience’ – whether services ‘supplied to a person who belongs outside the member States’ (Value Added Tax (Input Tax) (Specified Supplies) Order 1999 (SI 1999/3121) art 3(a)) – no in the circumstances of the case – Appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 84 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.450772

The Company of Proprietors of Whitchurch Bridge, Regina (on The Application of) v HM Treasury: Admn 13 Dec 2012

Whether HM Treasury is obliged by law to admit The Company of Proprietors of Whitchurch Bridge to the scheme under section 33 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 which enables certain bodies not registered for VAT to have repaid to them the VAT levied upon goods and services provided to them.
Burnett J
[2012] EWHC 3579 (Admin)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.467111

Tarlo Worldwide Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 25 Jan 2012

VALUE ADDED TAX- – MTIC-sale of mobile phones and CPUs – appellant’s repayment claims of pounds 1,523,459.88 refused on grounds that the appellant knew or ought to have known that the transactions were part of an MTIC fraud -appellant in ‘clean chain’ knew that the deals were part of a VAT fraud – appellant failed to attend hearing without good reason — costs reserved – appeal dismissed
[2012] UKFTT 85 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.450837

Kishore v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 22 Jul 2020

VAT inaccuracy penalty under s63 VATA 1994 notified after appellant trader’s Kittel appeal struck out – FTT’s decision on time at which penalty liability accrued and whether FTT had jurisdiction under Garage Molenheide in relation to HMRC’s set-off of penalty amounts against amounts due to appellant upheld – FTT’s decision to strike out appellant’s grounds on basis of Henderson v Henderson abuse of process, and in relation to Article 6 ECHR delay overturned – appeal allowed in part.
[2020] UKUT 233 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 25 September 2021; Ref: scu.652821

Cifaldi v Revenue and Customs (Penalty : Dishonest Evasion of Import Vat and Excise Duty On Tobacco): FTTTx 28 Apr 2020

Penalty – dishonest evasion of import VAT and Excise Duty on tobacco products imported from the Canary Islands – whether the latter penalty imposed within any applicable time limit – whether appropriate mitigation applied – appeal allowed in part
[2020] UKFTT 202 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 23 September 2021; Ref: scu.651569

Wilton Park Ltd and Others v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 23 Jan 2014

FTTTx VAT – whether face-value vouchers issued by appellant companies and paid for by patrons using debit and credit cards for use in payment for dancers’ services in appellant companies’ lap dancing clubs and subsequently redeemed by dancers dealings in credit guarantees or any other security and on redemption exempt from VAT – item 1 Group 5 Schedule 9 to VATA 1994 – yes – whether dealings in vouchers separate dealings in security for money – no – redemption of vouchers held to be ancillary part of overall composite taxable supply of performance facilitation services by appellants – appeals dismissed
[2014] UKFTT 115 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.521766

Turkswood Ltd v Revenue and Customs (VAT – MTIC – Whether Appellant’s Transactions Connected To VAT Fraud): FTTTx 21 May 2021

Whether Appellant knew or should have known of such connection – whether input tax on purchases and zero-rating of intra-EU despatches should be disallowed – Kittell, Mecsek-Gabona, Italmoda and Mobilx considered – appeal allowed in part
[2021] UKFTT 166 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 20 September 2021; Ref: scu.663738

Swann v Revenue and Customs (VAT : Security – Requirement For): FTTTx 2 Apr 2020

INCOME TAX and NATIONAL INSURANCE CONTRIBUTIONS – notice of requirement to provide security – whether original decision was flawed – no – whether review decision was flawed – yes – power of the Tribunal – notice of requirement varied – appeal allowed to that extent only
[2020] UKFTT 176 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.651588

Target Group Ltd v Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: CA 12 Jul 2021

Whether loan administration services (including the operation of individual loan accounts and processing payments received from borrowers) supplied by the appellant (‘Target’) to Shawbrook Bank Limited (‘Shawbrook’) (which originates and provides mortgages and loans to borrowers) are exempt from VAT pursuant to the exemption for financial services contained in article 135(1)(d) of Council Directive 2006/112/EC (the ‘Principal VAT Directive’ or ‘PVD’) implemented in UK law in Group 5, Schedule 9 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994
[2021] EWCA Civ 1043
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 17 September 2021; Ref: scu.665595

Milton Keynes Hospitals NHS Foundation Trust v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 23 Jul 2020

VALUE ADDED TAX – whether HMRC are entitled to make an assessment under section 73(2) VATA to recover an amount of VAT which has been incorrectly refunded under the Contracted Out Services Directions made under section 41 VATA – yes – appeal dismissed.
[2020] UKUT 231 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.652823

MA and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 6 Jul 2005

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – dishonest evasion – enquiries set in train by settlement between taxpayers and Inland Revenue – whether background to settlement a material factor – yes, but of limited value – interview of Appellants – whether PACE caution necessary – no – interview admissible – observations – whether reliable – yes – whether reasonably interpreted – yes – some admissions made – whether credible – no – assessment reasonably calculated and no evidence to warrant an adjustment – penalty – sufficient evidence of dishonesty throughout period assessed – no additional mitigation warranted – appeal dismissed
[2005] UKVAT V19150
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.229622

Metropole (Folkstone) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 4 Dec 2006

VDT Works of alteration of a listed building – Group 6 Schedule 8 VATA 1994 – the replacement of a demolished stone balcony with one built in modern materials and with additional structural features including new steel props – were these works of alteration which were excluded from zero rating because they were works of repair or maintenance – held yes.
[2006] UKVAT V19917
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 14 September 2021; Ref: scu.247555

Rathbone Community Industry v Custom and Excise: VDT 24 Jun 2003

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – exemption – option to waive exemption in relation to land – whether exercised – burden of proof – letter from chartered accountants notifying election – doubts about wisdom or necessity of election – appellant failing to discharge evidential burden – appeal dismissed.
[2003] UKVAT V18200
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 September 2021; Ref: scu.247578

Vickers Reynolds and Co (Lye) Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 17 Oct 2006

VDT VAT INPUT TAX – MOTOR CARS – Appellant hired motor cars for use by one of its company directors – the director used the motor car exclusively for the Appellant’s business -the Appellant directors passed resolutions regarding business use of the cars -the resolutions did not prohibit expressly private use – the resolutions did not amount to a legal impediment on the use of the car – no physical impediments – the insurance permitted domestic and social use – the Appellant failed to demonstrate on balance of probabilities it did not intend the cars to be made available for the private use of the director – Appeal dismissed.
[2006] UKVAT V19809
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 September 2021; Ref: scu.246188

Debenhams Retail Plc v Customs and Excise: VDT 3 Jun 2003

VDT CONSIDERATION – Value of supply – Retailer – Payment by credit or debit card – Appellant invites sales of goods and services at shelf price to customer – In-store notices and till slips state that customers may pay by card if 2.5% of price paid is payable to Appellant’s subsidiary for card-handling services – Customer’s card debt acquired by third party banks – Whether separate supply of exempt card-handling services by subsidiary to customer – Whether customer agrees with subsidiary for supply of services to customer – No – Whether value of Appellant’s standard rated supply of goods or services reduced by 2.5% – No – Appeal dismissed
SUPPLY – Exemption – Card-processing services – Appellant retailer invites sales of goods or services at shelf price to customers – Customers agree that 2.5% of price paid is payable to Appellant’s subsidiary company for card-handling services – Customer’s card debts to Appellant are acquired by third party banks – Whether, given that customer and subsidiary are in contractual relationship, subsidiary makes supply of card-handling services to customer – No
TAX AVOIDANCE – Reduction of consideration for standard-rated supply – Sales of goods by Appellant – Appellant’s wholly-owned subsidiary’s contracts with card-paying customers provide that 2.5% of price paid will go to subsidiary for card-handling services – Subsidiary appoints Appellant as agent for all card-processing purposes – Customers’ card debts acquired by third party banks – Scheme’s purpose to secure that 2.5% paid to subsidiary is consideration for an exempt supply with result that 97.5% only of shelf price is consideration for Appellant’s standard-rated supply – Whether purported supplies of card-handling services by subsidiary to be disregarded on Halifax principles as being neither economic activities nor supplies for VAT purposes – Yes – Whether conditions for abuse of rights doctrine (Emsland-Starke) satisfied – Yes
[2003] UKVAT V18169
Bailii
England and Wales
Cited by:
Cited – Aitken v Standard Life Assurance Ltd SCS 3-Dec-2008
The pursuer averred that the defendant, his pension provider, had wrongfully reduced its final bonus by ten per cent without notifying him. He sought to imply a term into the contract to provide such an effect, saying that the contract promised an . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 13 September 2021; Ref: scu.247573

West Lothian College Spv Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 12 May 2003

VDT Input Tax – attribution – Building works and Maintenance Contracts under a single contractual arrangement under P.F.I. rules – whether input tax on construction costs partly attributable to Maintenance Contract – whether Maintenance Contract ‘ancillary’ or has direct and immediate link with the construction costs. Appeal Allowed.
[2003] UKVAT V18133
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 13 September 2021; Ref: scu.247569

Lower and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 11 Feb 2008

VDT Value Added Tax – VAT treatment of transactions related to MOT tests – whether fees paid by the Approved Testing Station to a non-approved garage for delivering and collecting cars had to be re-analysed as an effective discount – whether the non-approved garage booked tests as agent for the car-owners – whether the rules in relation to disbursements had been followed – Appeal Allowed
[2008] UKVAT V20567
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.267441

Cox v Revenue and Customs: VDT 22 Mar 2005

REPAYMENT – three year cap – centrally issued assessments issued and paid in the absence of returns – repayment returns rendered more than three years later – were the repayments capped – yes – was a proper claim made for repayment – no – Section 80 VATA 1994 – appeal dismissed
[2006] UKVAT V18990
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.247526

Chaudhry v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: Admn 17 Jul 2007

The commissioners had served a notice on the taxpayer requiring him to pay security for his tax liabiities. He appealed out of time against the finding, and was prosecuted for having continued to trade without providing the security. He appealed.
Held: The appeal failed. The legislation made no provision for suspension of the requirement not to trade. A leaflet from the commissioners might have created a legitimate expectation that the trader could continue pending a proper appeal, but no such expectation was created where, as here, the appeal was lodged out of time.
Sedley LJ, Nelson J
Times 02-Aug-2007, [2007] EWHC 1805 (Admin)
Bailii
Value Added Tax Act 1994 72(11), Customs and Excise Management Act 1979 171(4)
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.258526

Loch Tay Highland Lodges Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 1 Feb 2004

VDT Sale of chalets or lodges in holiday development; restriction on use; not to be used as sole or main residence; whether zero rated or standard rated. VATA sections 30 Schedule 8 Group 5 Item 1 and Note 13.
[2004] UKVAT V18785
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Cottage Holiday Associates Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners 1983
The taxpayer had been assessed to VAT on the supply of time share holiday cottages. The supply was of an eighty year lease to each tenant with the right to occupy for one week in each of the eighty years. The taxpayer argued that the supply . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.216475

Edinburgh Leisure and others v Customs and Excise: VDT 30 Sep 2004

VDT Supply – Whether payment made to Appellants was for a taxable supply of services by way of subsidy or grant – Appellants specially formed to provide services otherwise the responsibility of their respective local authorities – Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 Sections 14, 15 and 16 – EC Sixth Directive 11A(1), 13A(1(m)) – VATA Schedule 9, Group 10 Item, 3.
[2004] UKVAT V18784
Bailii
Local Government and Planning (Scotland) Act 1982 14 15 16
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.216109

Revenue and Customs v Beigebell Ltd (Value Added Tax – Missing Trader Fraud): UTTC 4 Jun 2020

VALUE ADDED TAX – missing trader fraud – whether FTT decision adequately reasoned – whether FTT followed the correct approach to deciding whether taxpayer had the necessary ‘means of knowledge’ – whether decision vitiated by error as to a fundamental fact – appeal allowed.
[2020] UKUT 176 (TCC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.652563

Cotton v Revenue and Customs (VAT – Builders : Do-It-Yourself): FTTTx 30 Jan 2020

Value Added Tax – Repayment claim under DIY Builders’ and Converters’ VAT Refund Scheme in respect of a property in Scotland – Building (Scotland) Act 2003 considered – claim refused by HMRC – whether VATA s 35 and VAT Regulations 1995 reg 201 satisfied – yes – Appeal allowed
[2020] UKFTT 57 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 12 September 2021; Ref: scu.649139

Lester Aldridge (A Firm) v Customs and Excise: VDT 8 Dec 2004

Value added tax – input tax – section 24(1) VATA 1994 – partnership of solicitors took lease of office premises in name of nominee company – lease granted to nominee company with partnership as guarantor – partnership paid rent and VAT on rent and claimed VAT as input tax – whether supply to partnership – yes – whether VAT on rent input tax of partnership – yes – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Redrow Group plc applied – appeal allowed
[2004] UKVAT V18864
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.221117

Y4 Express Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax – Input Tax): FTTTx 10 Jul 2020

Value Added Tax – Input tax – Taxpayer claimed refund of input VAT on the basis that taxable supplies were made to the taxpayer – Whether an ‘economic activity’ was carried out – Taxpayer not entitled to refund of input VAT – appeal dismissed – Penalties for inaccurate returns – appeal dismissed – penalties reduced to careless inaccuracies.
[2020] UKFTT 293 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 07 September 2021; Ref: scu.652746

Harleyford Golf Club Ltd v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 28 Sep 2011

Value Added Tax – Whether agreement under s85 VATA 1994 – No -Whether reinstatement appropriate – No – Whether legitimate expectation that agreement reached – No – Applicant out of time and did not submit valid claim – No discretion to be exercised in their favour – Application dismissed
[2011] UKFTT 634 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 05 September 2021; Ref: scu.449559

Brammer Uk Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Value Added Tax – Claim for Repayment of Output Tax): FTTTx 17 Feb 2020

VALUE ADDED TAX – claim for repayment of output tax – fleet purchaser of motor vehicles – bonuses received from manufacturer – whether appellant has established that it overpaid output tax – whether appellant has established the amount of output tax overpaid – appeal dismissed
[2020] UKFTT 91 (TC)
Bailii
England and Wales

Updated: 03 September 2021; Ref: scu.649152

Freemans Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ECJ 29 May 2001

Agents of a mail order company were allowed to claim sums in credit for their own sales, against their own purchases. The credit was in effect applied through a separate account with the company. How was the VAT ‘taxable amount’ to be calculated? Here the deduction was not applied after the purchase, and were not therefore discounts. Many discounts were not in fact applied for. The VAT was to be calculated on the full purchase price less discounts applied at the time when the discount was withdrawn from the account.
Times 18-Jun-2001, Case C-86/99
European

Updated: 01 September 2021; Ref: scu.162745

TVI Televisao Independente Sa v Fazenda Publica: ECJ 11 Jun 2013

ECJ Taxation – VAT – Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC – Article 11(A)(2)(a) and (3)(c) – Council Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 78(a) and 79(c) – Taxable amount – Inclusion of taxes in the taxable amount – Screening tax – ‘Fiscal substitution’
Cruz Villalon AG
C-618/11, [2013] EUECJ C-618/11, [2013] EUECJ C-618/11
Bailii, Bailii
European

Updated: 30 August 2021; Ref: scu.511017

Amengual Far v Amengual Far: ECJ 3 Feb 2000

Europa Article 13B(b) of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes allows Member States to lay down a general rule making lettings of immovable property subject to VAT and exempting from that rule only lettings of immovable property to be used for dwelling purposes. In EU law exceptions to a general principle are generally interpreted restrictively: ‘This criterion has been consistently followed in the case law of this court’.
C-12/98, [2002] STC 382, [2000] EUECJ C-12/98
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – Colaingrove Limited v The Commissioners for Customs and Excise ChD 16-Apr-2003
The Directive exempted from a charge to VAT for letting of imoveable property. The taxpayer challenged the requirement to charge to VAT his business of leasing pitches for caravans.
Held: The directive allowed member states to derogate from . .
Cited – Colaingrove Ltd v the Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 19-Feb-2004
The taxpayer licensed static caravans on seasonal pitches on its land. They claimed exemption from charging VAT on the basis that they were residential lettings exempt under European legislation.
Held: The appeal failed. The legislation . .
Cited – Aerotel Ltd v Telco Holdings Ltd and others, In re Patent Application GB 0314464.9 in the name of Neal Macrossan Rev 1 CA 27-Oct-2006
In each case it was said that the requested patent concerned an invention consisting of a computer program, and was not therefore an invention and was unpatentable. In one case a patent had been revoked on being challenged, and in the other, the . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.162311

Ampafrance SA v Directeur des Services Fiscaux de Maine-et-Loire: ECJ 19 Sep 2000

Europa 1. Council Decision 89/487, adopted on the basis of Article 27 of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes, which provides that a Member State may be authorised to introduce special measures for derogation from the Sixth Directive in order to simplify the procedure for charging the tax or to prevent certain types of tax evasion or avoidance, and authorising the French Republic to apply a measure derogating from the second subparagraph of Article 17(6) of the Sixth Directive, is invalid under the general principle of proportionality, in so far as it authorises that State to deny traders the right to deduct the value added tax on expenditure which they are able to show to be of a strictly business nature.
Since the measure excludes as a matter of principle all expenditure in respect of accommodation, hospitality, food and entertainment from the right to deduct value added tax, which is a fundamental principle of the value added tax system established by the Sixth Directive, although appropriate means less detrimental to that principle than the exclusion of the right of deduction in the case of certain expenditure can be contemplated or already exist in the national legal order, it is not a means proportionate to that objective and has a disproportionate effect on the objectives and principles of the Sixth Directive.
2. The principle of the protection of legitimate expectations, which is the corollary of the principle of legal certainty and which is generally relied upon by individuals (traders) in a situation where they have legitimate expectations created by the public authorities, cannot be relied on by a Member State in order to avoid the consequences of a decision of the Court declaring a Community provision invalid, since it would jeopardise the possibility for individuals to be protected against conduct of the public authorities based on unlawful rules.
C-177/99, [2000] ECR I-7013, [2000] EUECJ C-177/99
Bailii
European
Cited by:
Cited – C R Smith Glaziers (Dunfermline) Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 20-Feb-2003
The taxpayer sold double glazing, supported by an insured guarantee, for which a charge was made. The additional charge was exempt, but it was contended that the contract should have stated the amount pursuant to Note 5.
Held: The contract . .

Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Updated: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.162656

Hewlett Packard BV v Directeur General des Douanes et Droits Indirects: ECJ 17 May 2001

Europa Common Customs Tariff – Combined nomenclature – Classification of a multi-function machine combining the functions of printer, photocopier, facsimile machine and computer scanner – Principal function – Validity of Regulation (EC) No 2184/97.
Classification regulations are adopted ‘when the classification in the CN of a particular product is such as to give rise to difficulty or to be a matter for dispute.’ and ‘It should be borne in mind that a classification regulation is adopted . . on the advice of the Customs Code Committee when the classification of a particular product is such as to give rise to difficulty or to be a matter for dispute. . . . The classification regulation constitutes the application of a general rule to a particular case, and thus contains guidance on the interpretation of the rule which can be applied by the authority responsible for the classification of an identical or similar product.’
Advocate General Mischo
[2001] EUECJ C-119/99, C-119/99, [2001] ECR I-3981
Bailii
European
Cited by:
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: 28 August 2021; Ref: scu.162747