Tag: VAT

London Institute (Now Known As the University of the Arts, London) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 6 Dec 2005

Value Added Tax – Claim for input tax under-declared – Claim made on 30 January 2001 for input tax under-claimed 1989-1996 – Legislation introducing limitation period for making claims had no provision for transitional relief – Effect on claim – Whether reasonable period sufficient for making claim – Value Added Tax Regulations 1995, SI 1995/2518, Reg. 29 (1A) – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19362

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238095

Bond House Systems Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 8 May 2003

The Tribunal described the general nature of a carousel fraud: ‘In its simplest form a carousel fraud works in this way. A VAT-registered trader, A, in one European Union member state sells taxable goods to a VAT-registered trader, B, in another member state. A’s sale to B is zero-rated in A’s member state’.
‘According to article 28c (A) (a) of the Sixth Directive, the supply of goods to an operator in another member state is exempted from VAT. In the wording of the United Kingdom Value Added Tax Act 1994, the supply is ‘zero-rated’. B should declare the purchase and pay acquisition tax in its own member state and on the premise that it is intending to use those goods in order to make onward taxable supply, then claim credit for the same amount as input tax. Usually, if it is a participant in a carousel fraud, it does neither. B then sells the goods to another VAT-registered trader C, in its own member state, charging and receiving VAT on the consideration. However, it fails to account to the tax authorities for that VAT and effectively disappears; it becomes what the commissioners refer to as a ‘missing trader’. Nevertheless, at the time of making its sale to C, while it is still registered for VAT and before the commissioners are aware that it is or might become a missing trader and had been able to intervene . . it provides a VAT invoice to C, which claims the VAT it has paid to B as input tax. C (to whom the commissioners refer as a ‘broker’) then sells the goods to registered trader in another member state: the hallmark of the simplest fraud is that this purchaser is A, and it is this circularity which gives rise to the ‘carousel fraud’. C has an input tax to claim but, because its sale to A is zero-rated in C’s own member state is not required to account for any output tax. As noted above, the supply of goods to an operator in another member state is exempted from VAT. The vendor is entitled to recover input tax pursuant to article 17(2) (d) of the Sixth Directive as inserted by article 28f(1) thereof. The result, if the fraud is successful is that B has received, but not accounted for the VAT which the tax authorities must pay to C . . . The goods are no more than a token, necessary to lend verisimilitude to the transactions . . A (at least, if it is participant in the fraud) likewise has no genuine business motive in buying back that which it has sold.’

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18100

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Adopted – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Adopted – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Adopted – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238116

Prudential Assurance Company Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 5 Dec 2005

VDT EXEMPTION – supply by The Boots Company plc to the Appellant in connection with a co-branded card scheme under which payment was based on the use of the card – whether exempt as part of the supply of intermediation services or whether taxable as being for the right to participate in the scheme – the former – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19364

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238103

F2 Leisure Ltd and Another v Revenue and Customs: VDT 4 Oct 2005

VDT VAT – SECURITY – Protection of Revenue – Company Directors involved in failed companies in the same business and operating from the same address as the Appellant companies- one of the Appellant companies poor VAT compliance record – downturn in business and threat to jobs not relevant – Appellants engaged in cash business VAT collected but not paid – threat to jobs due to Appellants’ actions not the imposition of security – Whether Respondents’ actions in requiring a security reasonable – Yes – Appeal dismissed – VAT ACT 1994 Schedule 11 p 4(1)

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19253

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238001

A and T Systems Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 30 Nov 2005

VDT VAT – SECURITY- Protection of Revenue -Company Director involved in other companies which had poor records of VAT compliance – three of the companies owed considerable sums in VAT – two of which had gone into liquidation – the Appellant company in the same business as the other companies with the same trading address as the two previous companies owned by the director – Appellant company not yet trading – Appellant company set up for a specific contract – the steps taken by the Appellant to minimise financial risk occurred after the issue of the Notice for Security – not relevant to the reasonableness of the decision – Whether Respondents’ actions in requiring a security reasonable – Yes – Appeal dismissed- VAT ACT 1994 Schedule 11 p 4(1).

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19410

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.238029

Atlantic Electronics v HM Revenue and Customs: VDT 20 Sep 2005

VALUE ADDED TAX – ZERO-RATING -supplies of mobile phones to a person in another Member State- International Consignment Notes (CMRs) contained false particulars – unreliable evidence demonstrating actual removal – no other evidence to substantiate removal – Commissioners entitled to conclude that the mobile phones had not been removed -whether domestic legislation compatible with Article 28cA(a) of the Sixth Directive- subject to referral to Court of Justice in Telios – Appeal stood over for final determination pending Court of Justice and High Court decisions in Telios.

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19256

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237962

Turn-und Sportunion Waldburg v Finanzlandesdirektion fur Oberosterreich: ECJ 12 Jan 2006

ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 13(B)(b) and (C)(a) – Exemption of leasing and letting of immovable property – Right of option in favour of taxable persons – Non-profit-making sports clubs – Conditions

Citations:

[2006] ECR I-589, [2006] EUECJ C-246/04, [2006] STI 164, [2006] STC 1506

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237653

Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ECJ 12 Jan 2006

ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain of supply involving a defaulting trader or a trader using an unauthorised VAT number – Carousel fraud.

Citations:

C-484/03, [2006] EUECJ C-484/03, C-355/03, C-354/03

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Adopted – Bond House Systems Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 8-May-2003
The Tribunal described the general nature of a carousel fraud: ‘In its simplest form a carousel fraud works in this way. A VAT-registered trader, A, in one European Union member state sells taxable goods to a VAT-registered trader, B, in another . .
At VDT – Optigen Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 1-May-2003
INPUT TAX – carousel fraud – whether transactions must be ignored as not being economic activities with the result that an innocent party is not entitled to credit for input tax – yes – whether the principles of legal certainty, proportionality, . .

Cited by:

See Also – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
See Also – Optigen Ltd, Fulcrum Electronics Ltd, Bond House Systems Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 12-Jan-2006
ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 2(1), Article 4(1) and (2) and Article 5(1) – Deduction of input tax – Economic activity – Taxable person acting as such – Supply of goods – Transaction forming part of a chain . .
Cited – Total Network Sl v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 31-Jan-2007
The defendants suspected a carousel VAT fraud. The defendants appealed a finding that there was a viable cause of action alleging a ‘conspiracy where the unlawful means alleged is a common law offence of cheating the public revenue’. The defendants . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.237648

Centralan Property v Commissioners of Customs and Excise (Taxation): ECJ 15 Dec 2005

ECJ Sixth VAT Directive – Article 20(3) – Capital goods – Deduction of input tax – Adjustments of deductions – Immovable property – Disposal by means of two connected transactions, one exempt, the other taxable – Apportionment.

Citations:

C-63/04, [2005] EUECJ C-63/04

Links:

Bailii

European, VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.236389

CMS Peripherals Ltd v Revenue and Customs: VDT 8 Aug 2005

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – three default surcharge – finance director of Appellant perpetrated large scale and complex fraud against the Appellant – the effect of the fraud was to reduce the cash flow of the Appellant and to reduce its profits – whether the Appellant had a reasonable excuse for each of the defaults – yes – appeal allowed – VATA 1994 Ss 59A(8)(a)(ii) and 71(1)

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19234

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230184

Warren (T/A Sports Network Europe) v Revenue and Customs: VDT 8 Aug 2005

VDT INPUT TAX – Exclusion of credit for input tax – Business entertainment – Taxpayer’s business is promoting boxing matches – Taxpayer obtaining licence of box at Arsenal football ground – Taxpayer conducting business meetings at box on occasions of football matches – Whether box used for ‘business entertainment’ – Value Added Tax (Special Provisions) Order 1992 (SI 1992 No.3222) Art 5

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19213

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 04 July 2022; Ref: scu.230202

Revenue and Customs v Jacobs: CA 22 Jul 2005

The taxpayer had converted a former residentional boarding school into a substantial private residence. He had sought to claim over andpound;300,000 VAT inputs. The Commissioners appealed the finding that he was so entitled.
Held: ‘works constitute a residential conversion to the. extent only that they consist in the conversion of a non-residential (part of a) building. If and to the extent that the works consist in the conversion of what is not non-residential, then those works are outside the scope of the subsection. A conversion qualifies not only when converting the whole of a non-residential building but also when converting a non-residential part of the building. If part is non-residential the other part must be treated as Residential, i.e., not non-residential. A conversion qualifies if it has anyone of three results namely a building designed as a dwelling or a number of dwellings, or a building intended for use solely for a residential purpose or anything which would fall within the above if different parts of a building were treated as separate buildings. The part of the building likewise has to be converted into a building designed as a dwelling or number of dwellings. The decision of the Tribunal was re-instated.

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 930

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

At VAT Tribunal – Jacobs v Customs and Excise VDT 13-Feb-2004
A developer sought to set off input taxes paid in the redevelopment of a former residential boarding school as a family home.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal succeeded. . .
Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Jacobs ChD 22-Oct-2004
. .
Cited – Commission v United Kingdom ECJ 21-Jun-1988
Europa An action by the Commission pursuant to Article 169 of the Treaty against a Member State for failure to fulfil its obligations, the bringing of which is a matter for the Commission in its entire . .
Cited – Commission v Finlande ECJ 15-Jul-2004
Europa Failure of a Member State to fulfil obligations – Directive 77/388/EEC – VAT – Article 11(A)(1)(a) – Taxable amount – Subsidy directly linked to the price – Regulation (EC) No 603/95 – Aid granted in the . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Blom-Cooper ChD 12-Jul-2002
The tax payer had converted a building which had had both residential and business uses into residential use, and sought to reclaim the input tax on that part of the expenditure attributable to the residential part. The Commissioners appealed.
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Blom-Cooper CA 4-Apr-2003
The taxpayer appealed a decision that a conversion of a non-residential part of a building used for business and residential purposes was not exempt from VAT.
Held: The building was not within the definition of a self contained residential . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228995

Hostgilt Limited v Megahart Limited: 4 Dec 1998

VAT operates with a system of inputs and outputs to bring down the burden of purchase tax. VAT is a tax on a retailer’s turnover, which purchase tax was not. In a concluded contract the question of whether a sum includes VAT is a matter of construction of the agreement.
Miss Hazel Williamson QC said: ‘There is a policy described as ‘fiscal neutrality’ along the line of supply. As long as a party is making taxable supplies it can set off the tax it pays on any input into its business against the tax which it charges on any output. It can either pay the difference to, or reclaim the difference from, Customs and Excise. The only person who eventually gets fixed without any potential set off is the end consumer who is not making taxable supplies. This can be a party not making supplies at all or a party making exempt supplies, or, complicatedly, partially exempt supplies, a situation which applies in the areas of financial services, banking and the insurance industries. To anyone making taxable supplies, the imposition of VAT is irrelevant; to anyone not doing so, it is an expense such that the taking of supplies under a VATable transaction creates additional cost and makes the supply consequently more expensive.’

Judges:

Miss Hazel Williamson QC

Citations:

[1999] STC 141, (1997) 77 PandCR D34, [1999] BTC 5057, [1999] BVC 78

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Cited – Debenhams Retail Plc and Another v Sun Alliance and London Assurance Company Ltd CA 20-Jul-2005
The landlord appealed against a decision that VAT was not to be included when calculating a rent based upon the turnover in the premises, when it had been expressed to include purchase taxes.
Held: The appeal succeeded: ‘it would be wrong to . .
Cited – Mason v Boscawen ChD 18-Dec-2008
The landlord had opted to charge VAT on part of the rent. The tenant fell into arrears and now challenged a notice to quit which included the VAT. The court was asked what constituted ‘rent’ for the purposes of a demand for rent founding a notice to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228927

Longborough Festival Opera v Customs and Excise: VDT 26 May 2005

VDT EXEMPTION – Cultural services – Eligible body- Preclusion from distributing profits – Management and administration on voluntary basis by persons with no financial interest in the body’s activities – Appellant company limited by guarantee having four ‘trustees’- Trustee undertaking to guarantee losses of Appellant – Same trustee making loans to Appellant – Same trustee owning premises in which Appellant stages operatic productions – Same trustee sole director and majority share holder of commercial company which had financial dealings with Appellant – Whether Appellant managed and administered on voluntary basis by person with no financial interest in its activities – No – EC Sixth Dir, Art 13A.2(a) – VATA 1994, Sch 9, Gp 13, Item 2(b), Note (2)

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19096

Links:

Bailii

Cited by:

Appeal from – Longborough Festival Opera v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 27-Jan-2006
The charitable company sought tax exemption as an eligible body supplying music of a cultural nature.
Held: the company’s artciles prohibited distribution of profits, and the management as by directors having no financial interest. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Charity

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228548

Canterbury Hockey Club and Canterbury Ladies Hockey Club v Customs and Excise: VDT 25 May 2005

VDT APPEAL – Strike-out – Appeal by recipient of supplies – Appellant claims exemption – Supplier withdrew appeal against assessment in respect of those supplies – Appellant as recipient of supplies wishes to contend that supplies are exempt – Whether principles of proportionality require Appellant to show it has a sufficient interest – No – Whether supplier’s withdrawal results in a section 85 agreement binding Appellant – No – Whether abuse of process for Appellant to pursue its appeal – No – Whether doctrine of res judicata prevents Appellant from pursuing its appeal – No – Whether rule 19(3) Tribunals Rules enable the Tribunal to refuse to entertain the appeal unless the supplier is joined – No – Application dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V19086

Links:

Bailii

VAT

Updated: 01 July 2022; Ref: scu.228537

Finanzamt Arnsberg v Stadt Sundern (Taxation): ECJ 26 May 2005

ECJ Sixth Directive – Article 25 – Common flat-rate scheme for farmers – Grant of hunting licences within the framework of a municipal forestry undertaking – Concept of ‘agricultural service’.

Citations:

C-43/04, [2005] EUECJ C-43/04

Links:

Bailii

European, Agriculture, VAT

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225317

Empowerment Enterprises Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 21 Feb 2005

Exempt Supplies – education; tuition given privately by teacher, who is director and employee of limited company; EC Sixth Directive Article 13A.1(j); whether properly implemented by domestic legislation by Value Added Tax Act 1994 Schedule 9 group 6 item 2; whether domestic legislation compatible with EC Sixth Directive; No; appeal allowed.

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18963

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225074

Totel Distribution Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 24 Feb 2005

VDT VAT – input tax – alleged carousel fraud – Commissioners unable to establish circulation of payment without tribunal inferring that certain payments had been made to particular party in chain of transactions – tribunal unwilling to make necessary inferences – appeal allowed without tribunal hearing any evidence.

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18956

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

See Also – Totel Ltd v Revenue Customs VDT 19-May-2006
VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – suspected carousel or MTIC fraud – input tax repayment withheld pending ECJ judgment in Optigen and others – input tax paid with repayment supplement shortly after release of . .
See Also – Totel Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The First Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and Others Admn 24-Mar-2011
The claimant sought to appeal against refusal of relief from payment of sums assessed by way of penalty, on the basis of hardship. HMRC argued that the right of appeal underthe 2007 Act had been taken away by the 1994 Act. . .
See Also – Totel Distribution Ltd v Revenue and Customs FTTTx 31-Mar-2011
VAT – MTIC – contra-trading – clean chain broker – knew or should have known? – yes – appeal dismissed. . .
See Also – Totel Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v The First-Tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) and Another CA 31-Oct-2012
The appellant had requested a hardship allowance so as not to have to pay claimed VAT before the hearing of an appeal. That was refused, and the claimant now said that the rules restricting an appeal against such a refusal were unlawful.
Held: . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.225084

Regina on the Application of Teleos Plc and others v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 2 Mar 2005

The taxpayer sought to challenge in Europe the ruling by the respondents that the mobile phones they supplied did not meet the criteria to be zero-rated for VAT. A decision would be unlikely before 2006. They sought judicial review now of the refusal of the commissioners to make an interim payment.
Held: There exists in rule 25.7 an ability in the courts to provide for an interim order of a nature not specifically provided for. Because a remedy existed, there was no infringement of the European rules. The rule set out the preconditions for such an order, and the applicant did not meet them.

Judges:

Lord Justice Ward Lord Justice Dyson Mr Justice Bennett

Citations:

[2005] EWCA Civ 200, Times 09-Mar-2005

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Civil Procedure Rules 25.7

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Capital One Developments Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 4-Feb-2002
The company sought repayment of some 8 million pounds overpaid VAT from the Commissioners. That claim was yet to be determined, but the company sough an order for interim payments, on the basis that it could repay if necessary.
Held: Whilst . .
Cited – Garage Molenheide BVBA (C-286/94), Peter Schepens (C-340/95), Bureau Rik Decan-Business Research and Development NV (BRD) (C-401/95), Sanders BVBA (C-47/96) vBelgian State ECJ 18-Dec-1997
Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC) – Scope – Right to deduction of VAT – Retention of balance of VAT due – Principle of proportionality . .
Appeal from – Teleos Plc and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Customs and Excise Admn 6-May-2004
. .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Teleos Plc and Others, Regina (on the Application Of) v Customs and Excise Admn 6-May-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Civil Procedure Rules

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223278

National Provident Institution v Customs and Excise: VDT 18 Feb 2005

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax -Appellant made exempt supplies of finance (the sale of securities) outside the member states with a right to recovery of input tax (specified supplies) as well as taxable and exempt supplies – no goods or services supplied to the Appellant were used exclusively in making specified supplies – whether the input tax on goods or services used in part in making specified supplies was to be attributed to specified supplies by first estimating the percentage of employees engaged in all dealings with securities; then applying that percentage to the amount of residual input tax; and then reducing that amount by a further percentage which was calculated by reference to the values of specified supplies in relation to the value of total supplies of dealing in securities – no – or by reference to the proportion which the value of the specified supplies bore to the value of total supplies – yes – appeal on this issue allowed but figures not yet determined – VATA 1994 Ss 24-26; VAT (Input Tax) (Specified Supplies) Order 1992 SI 1992 No. 3123; VAT General Regulations 1995 SI 1995 No. 2518 Regs 101 to 103.
VALUE ADDED TAX – time limits – whether an assessment to recover a repayment of tax had been made within three years after the end of the prescribed accounting period – no – whether some assessments of tax were made within one year after evidence of facts sufficient to justify the making of the assessments came to the knowledge of Customs and Excise – no – whether some assessments of interest previously paid by Customs and Excise to the Appellant were made within two years after evidence of facts came to the knowledge of Customs and Excise – no – appeals on this issue allowed – VATA 1994 S73(2) and (6); s 77(1)(a); and s 78A(2)

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18944

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.223181

3D Micro Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 17 Jan 2005

VDT ZERO-RATING – removal of goods to Republic of Ireland – documentary evidence failed to demonstrate that the goods had left the UK in accordance with the requirements of Customs Notice 703 – the goods assessed to VAT at standard rate – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2004] UKVAT V18907

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222664

GB (UK) Leisure Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 21 Jan 2005

VDT VAT – SECURITY – REQUIREMENT FOR – matrimonial breakdown – failure of business partnership between spouses – marriage difficulties not shown to be cause of failure of business – requirement for security reasonable and justified on basis that failure of previous business apparently commercial – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18915

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222069

Sport in Desford v Customs and Excise: VDT 21 Jan 2005

ZERO-RATING – value added tax – supply of the construction of a Clubhouse – whether for use by a charity – whether for use as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a local community – appeal allowed – VATA 1994 s.30 and Schedule 8 Group 5 Item 2(a) and Note 6(b)

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18914

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222076

Grange Builders (Quainton) Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 17 Jan 2005

VDT VAT – Zero-rating of construction services supplied in the course of an approved alteration of a protected building – item 2 of Group 6 of Schedule 8, VATA 1994 – whether a barn which had been used as a garage before an approved alteration to it qualified as a garage within the statutory definition of a building designed to remain as or become a dwelling or number of dwellings, in Note (2) of Group 6, which is an ingredient in the statutory definition of protected building in Note (1) of Group 6 – whether instead it is required that a structure should have been built as a garage before it could qualify as a garage within the definition in Note (2) of Group 6 – held that use as a garage as a matter of fact and reality before an approved alteration was sufficient to qualify as a garage within the definition in Note (2), and that it was not required that the barn should have been built as a garage – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18905

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222071

RA Logan and Co v Customs and Excise: VDT 21 Jan 2005

Adjournment: Appellant Solicitor: No reason for delay: Adjournment Refused. Default Surcharge: Late Notice of Appeals: Appeals admitted: Reasonable excuse: Reasons for failure to pay 1999-2004: Reasonable excuse accepted for part period: Appeal partly allowed: No expenses due to or by either party.

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18919

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222074

Edinburgh’s Telford College v Customs and Excise: VDT 21 Jan 2005

VDT Taxable persons – Further Education College – whether acting as a public authority or under private law regime – EC Sixth Directive Art 4.5 Input Tax – application of Lennartz to a partially exempt trader – fair and reasonable attribution.

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18913

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222067

P and PR Ltd (T/A P and F Print Finishing) v Customs and Excise: VDT 21 Jan 2005

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – security – VATA 1994 Sch 11 para 4(2)(a) – Appellant acquiring assets, trading name and premises from company in liquidation and with poor compliance record and continuing same trade – predecessor company and Appellant having same sole director – security properly demanded – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18916

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222073

Civil Service Pensioners Alliance v Customs and Excise: VDT 21 Jan 2005

VDT VAT – exemption – pensioners’ alliance – whether a trade union or professional body – no – whether an organisation ‘with the aims of a trade union, philanthropic or civic nature’ within EC 6th Directive article 13A(f) and (l) – no – VATA 1994 Schedule 9 Group 9.

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18911

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222066

Watson v Customs and Excise: VDT 7 Jan 2005

Value added tax – Item 2, Group 6 Sch 8 VATA 1994 – protected buildings -whether separate building used as part of house which is a listed building is the same building – no – C and E Comrs v Zielinski Bakerand Partners Ltd applied – whether building designed to become a dwelling consisting of self-contained living accommodation after the alteration – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18903

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222078

Spice of Lyefe v Customs and Excise: VDT 21 Jan 2005

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – restaurant and take-away business – test meals and observations – whether evidence gleaned by Respondents reliable – yes – whether theft of takings by member of staff relevant – no – whether evidence of free meals adequate – no – no basis for reduction of amount assessed – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2005] UKVAT V18918

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 29 June 2022; Ref: scu.222075

Nicholas (T/A Pa Scaffolding) v Customs and Excise: VDT 4 Dec 2002

SUPPLY – Transfer of business as a going concern – Appellant transferred certain assets of his business – No written contract – No mention of transfer of goodwill or existing contracts – No provision for employees, debtors or creditors – Claim by purchaser for input tax – Whether transfer of business as a going concern – No – VAT (Special Provisions) Order 1995 – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2002] UKVAT V17943

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221402

Powerscreen Equipment Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 4 Dec 2002

MISDECLARATION PENALTY – Reasonable excuse – Mitigation – Clerical error – Figure for sales omitted significant amount – Whether reasonable excuse that Commissioners were slow in responding to Appellant’s letter – No – Whether mitigation – No – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2002] UKVAT V17946

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221403

Mike Kiernans Beer Tent Co Ltd (T/A Fish and Duck) v Customs and Excise: VDT 9 Sep 2003

VDT COSTS – Company appearing by director – Successful appellant claiming costs in respect of time spent by director and director’s wife in preparation and conduct of appeal – No legal qualification – Whether entitled to such costs – No – Application dismissed to that extent

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18310

Links:

Bailii

VAT, Costs

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221276

NA Kays Horticultural Products Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 9 Dec 2004

VDT DEFAULT SURCHARGE – tax return and tax due said to have been despatched in March – due date falling at end of April – return and tax found to have been received in May – no ground for discharging surcharge – non attendance of appellant – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2004] UKVAT V18882

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221121

Gohil and Co (Northampton) Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 24 Oct 2003

VDT VALUE ADDED TAX – input tax – VAT invoices apparently genuine issued by unregistered traders or traders using false VAT numbers – supplies represented by invoices genuinely made and paid for – whether suppliers registrable – whether recipient of supply entitled to input tax credit – Commissioners’ discretion – appeal dismissed

Judges:

Colin Bishopp

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18361

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221304

Orginal Produce Company (Middlesbrough) Ltd v The Customs and Excise: VDT 9 Dec 2004

VDT DEFAULT SURCHARGE – tribunal barred in law from treating insufficiency of funds as reasonable excuse – non attendance of appellant – no reasonable excuse suggested for non-payment of tax by due date – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2004] UKVAT V18860

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221126

Wong and others v Customs and Excise: VDT 14 Jan 2004

VDT REGISTRATION – Underdeclaration – Suppression of takings – Calculation of suppressed takings – Compulsory registration – Effective date of registration – Whether mitigation allowed – No – Penalty for belated registration – Appeal dismissed – VATA 1994, ss 73(1), 67

Citations:

[2003] UKVAT V18445

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221156

Iliffe and Another (T/A Otterton Post Office) v Customs and Excise: VDT 14 Jan 2004

VDT ASSESSMENT – Over-claimed input tax – Work done to a listed building – Whether alteration or repair – Part of work related to private house – Whether VAT reasonable
LEGAL COSTS – Appellants ordered by court to pay building societies costs including VAT – Whether that VAT recoverable in hands of the Appellants – Civil Procedure Rules 1998 considered – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2004] UKVAT V18444

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221149

Tsimboykas (T/A Starbright Cleaning) v Customs and Excise: VDT 9 Dec 2004

VDT VAT – security requirement – Respondents accepting by time of hearing that Appellant’s compliance record satisfactory – requirement of security to be withdrawn – tribunal required to consider conditions at the time security demanded – requirement reasonably imposed – appeal dismissed.

Citations:

[2004] UKVAT V18881

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 June 2022; Ref: scu.221136

Fengate Developments (A Partnership) v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise: CA 1 Dec 2004

Land was transferred by a partnership to one of the partners and his wife. The consideration stated in the transfer was andpound;125,000, but each transferee had paid a similar sum into the partnership account. The respondents said that VAT should have been charged, and on a VAT inclusive price of andpound;250,000. The taxpayer appealed.
Held: A transfer of an interest in land is an exempt supply for VAT purposes unless the owner has waived exemption. The partnership had waived exemption. The transfer was not of the interest only of the retiring partner. The form as used was not the sole determinant of the issues. Given the circumstances, the tribunal was free to find as it had.

Judges:

Kay, Lord Justice Kay Lord Justice Mummery The Honourable Mr Justice Gage

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1591, Times 06-Dec-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Fengate Developments (A Partnership) v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 6-Feb-2004
. .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Reed Personnel Services Ltd QBD 13-Apr-1995
A company providing agency nurses was not itself providing nursing services and was not exempt from VAT. Where a tripartite contract was unclear on the liability for VAT, the tribunal was to look on it as a whole. It was the function of the Tribunal . .

Cited by:

Appealed to – Fengate Developments (A Partnership) v The Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 6-Feb-2004
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Land

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.220223

Belgian State v Temco Europe: ECJ 18 Nov 2004

Where the substance of a transaction was merely that premises were made available under a licence for occupation, rather than for the provision of services, a licence to occupy premises could be treated as a letting for the purpose of the Sixth Directive.

Citations:

C-284/03, [2004] EUECJ C-284/03, Times 25-Nov-2004

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Cited – Stichtung ‘Goed Wonen’ and others v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 4-Oct-2001
A letting for the purpose of the VAT directive was essentially ‘the conferring by a landlord on a tenant for an agreed period and in return for payment of the right to occupy property as if that person were the owner and to exclude any other person . .
Cited – Blasi v Finanzamt Munchen ECJ 12-Feb-1998
ECJ Article 13.B(b)(1) of Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonisation of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes may be construed as meaning that the provision of short-term accommodation for . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Landlord and Tenant

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219715

Courts Plc v Customs and Excise: CA 17 Nov 2004

Citations:

[2004] EWCA Civ 1527

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Cited – Primback Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 30-Apr-1996
A retailer giving a discount was liable for Vat only on the discounted finance price, not on the full retail price. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.219477

The Commissioners Of Customs And Excise v The Civil Service Motor Association: CA 25 Nov 1997

The Commissioners appealed from a finding that the Association was entitled to the benefit of an exemption from VAT under Schedule 6 of the 1983 Act

Judges:

Hobhouse, Pill, Mummery LJJ

Citations:

[1998] BTC 5003, [1998] STC 111, [1997] CA Civ 2809, [1998] BVC 21

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

VAT Act 1983 Sch 6

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 27 June 2022; Ref: scu.143208

Staatssecretaris Van Financien v Hong Kong Trade Development Council.: ECJ 1 Apr 1982

Refund of value added tax.

Citations:

R-89/81, [1982] EUECJ R-89/81, [1983] 1 CMLR 73, [1982] ECR 1277

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd v Revenue and Customs SC 11-May-2016
The court was asked whether the appellant, Airtours Holidays Transport Ltd (formerly MyTravel Group plc), was entitled to recover, by way of input tax VAT charged by PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP in respect of services provided by PwC and paid for by . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 21 June 2022; Ref: scu.215065