Tag: VAT

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Madgett and Another T/A Howden Court Hotel: QBD 15 Jan 1996

A hotel’s offering of a coach trip to collect guests may make them travel agents for VAT purposes. The case was referred on to the ECJ.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Jan-1996

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Reffered to – 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 . .

Cited by:

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

VAT, European

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79733

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Redrow Group Plc: CA 3 Jul 1997

Where a house builder pays the estate agent’s bills on the sale of the buyer’s own house, the VAT paid on the estate agents’ invoices was not recoverable.

Citations:

Times 03-Jul-1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Redrow Group Plc HL 11-Feb-1999
Where house builders had paid the estate agents’ fees for exchanged property on sales, the supply had been, at least in part, to the builder, and the builder could accordingly recover the agents’ VAT as input tax. A supplier could be treated as . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79397

Commission of the European Communities v United Kingdom Case C-359/97: ECJ 10 Oct 2000

The UK had not complied with its obligations to the commission with regard to VAT in that it had failed to apply VAT to the collection of tolls on the use of roads and bridges where operated privately. The fact that similar operations were carried out by public bodies which would be exempt was insufficient to cause private operators to be exempt. Because the UK had failed to collect these sums, its accounting with the Commission was also in error.

Citations:

Times 10-Oct-2000

VAT, Transport, European

Updated: 10 May 2022; Ref: scu.79306

Total UK Ltd v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: ChD 3 Nov 2006

The taxpayers awarded gift vouchers to motorists purchasing fuel. They sought to deduct against their liability for VAT the cost of purchasing the vouchers.
Held: The taxpayer’s appeal succeeded. The court did not find the decision in Kuwait petroleum persuasive.

Judges:

Sir Andrew Park

Citations:

Times 08-Dec-2006

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 2 19

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Not followed – Kuwait Petroleum (GB) Ltd v Customs and Excise ChD 20-Dec-2000
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 07 May 2022; Ref: scu.247672

Pegasus Birds Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 22 Oct 1997

The taxpayer asserted that the Commissioner’s assessment to VAT were out of time and had not been made to the inspector’s ‘best judgment’.

Citations:

Unreported 22 Oct 1997

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Pegasus Birds Ltd v H M Customs and Excise Admn 27-Nov-1998
The Excise Commissioners eventually issued an assessment to VAT in 1997 for 1993 after commencing their investigations in 1993.
Held: Section 73 did not operate as a full bar to the Commissioners making an assessment after the one year where . .
See Also – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 10-Feb-2000
The company were said to have kept inadequate VAT Records. The parties disputed the sums due or evaded, and an assessment was only finally issued in 1997, at which point the taxpayer said that the assessment was out of time under section 73(6)(b). . .
See Also – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 7-Jun-2002
The Tribunal was asked whether an assessment to VAT notified to the Respondent Company, Pegasus Birds Limited and contained in a formal notice of assessment was made to best judgment.
Held: It was not. The Respondent’s appeal succeeded. . .
See Also – Commissioners of H M Customs and Excise v Pegasus Birds Limited ChD 7-Nov-2003
The Commissioners appealed from a decision of the Vat and Duties Tribunal . .
See Also – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise CA 27-Jul-2004
The taxpayer complained that the assessment imposed by the Commissioners was wholly unreasonable, and void. The tribunal had found the assessment wholly unreasonable, but the High Court had allowed the Commissioners’ appeal.
Held: There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.577573

Pegasus Birds Ltd v Customs and Excise: VDT 7 Jun 2002

The Tribunal was asked whether an assessment to VAT notified to the Respondent Company, Pegasus Birds Limited and contained in a formal notice of assessment was made to best judgment.
Held: It was not. The Respondent’s appeal succeeded.

Judges:

Mr Theodore Wallace and Mr Cyril Shaw FCA

Citations:

Unreported, 7 Jun 2002

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 22-Oct-1997
The taxpayer asserted that the Commissioner’s assessment to VAT were out of time and had not been made to the inspector’s ‘best judgment’. . .
See Also – Pegasus Birds Ltd v H M Customs and Excise Admn 27-Nov-1998
The Excise Commissioners eventually issued an assessment to VAT in 1997 for 1993 after commencing their investigations in 1993.
Held: Section 73 did not operate as a full bar to the Commissioners making an assessment after the one year where . .
See Also – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 10-Feb-2000
The company were said to have kept inadequate VAT Records. The parties disputed the sums due or evaded, and an assessment was only finally issued in 1997, at which point the taxpayer said that the assessment was out of time under section 73(6)(b). . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Commissioners of H M Customs and Excise v Pegasus Birds Limited ChD 7-Nov-2003
The Commissioners appealed from a decision of the Vat and Duties Tribunal . .
At VDT – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise CA 27-Jul-2004
The taxpayer complained that the assessment imposed by the Commissioners was wholly unreasonable, and void. The tribunal had found the assessment wholly unreasonable, but the High Court had allowed the Commissioners’ appeal.
Held: There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 04 May 2022; Ref: scu.577572

Regina (International Masters Publishers Ltd) v Revenue and Customs Commissioners: QBD 19 Jan 2006

The taxpayer sold book with associated CDs. The respondent refused to apply the ESC 37 concession. There was doubt its capacity to do so, but the taxpayer first lodged an appeal. It now sought leave to apply for judicial review of the decision out of time.
Held: The applicant had been aware of the possibility of applying for judicial review from the start. It had instead lodged an appeal hoping to save costs. In those circumstances leave would be refused. The delay was substantial. The company should have notified the respondents of its doubts, and sought an agreement from the respondent to an extension of time to apply for a judicial review.

Citations:

Times 30-Jan-2006

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – International Masters Publishers Ltd v Revenue and Customs VDT 25-Apr-2005
SINGLE OR MULTIPLE SUPPLY – CD book as part of a series on classic composers comprising a CD and 12 pages of written material and illustrations – principal supply is that of the CD – appeal dismissed . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Judicial Review

Updated: 01 May 2022; Ref: scu.238287

Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Bugeja: CA 26 Oct 2001

A video shop sold videos for andpound;20.00. On a second sale, he would take the previously sold video back, and charge only andpound;10.00 on that second sale. The commissioners sought VAT on the basis that the price on each transaction was andpound;20.00. The true transaction was that the consideration for the supply of the replacement video was part money, andpound;10, and part goods, the return of the video previously sold. The relevant question was what was the monetary equivalent of the non-monetary element of the consideration provided by the customer in the context of the transaction which actually took place.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

Times 15-Nov-2001, Gazette 29-Nov-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166808

Lex Services plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; Customs and Excise Commissioners v Littlewoods Organisation Plc: CA 26 Oct 2001

The taxpayer took cars in part exchange on the sale of new cars. If the car was returned, the real value of the part exchange car was refunded. The taxpayer sought to be taxed on the real value of the car.
Held: The tax was payable on the actual value attributed by the parties to the part exchange car. The possibility of a later refund, was a different transaction.

Judges:

Lord Justice Aldous, Lord Justice Chadwick and Lord Justice Sedley

Citations:

Times 07-Nov-2001, Gazette 29-Nov-2001, [2001] STC 1568

Statutes:

Sixth Directive (77/388/EEC)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Lex Services Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ChD 7-Sep-2000
The taxpayer took in cars in part exchange at a cost higher than the re-sale value. The Commissioners sought to collect VAT on the higher price as shown in the agreements, and the tax payer on the actual value.
Held: Where the parties . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Lex Services plc v Her Majestys Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 4-Dec-2003
When taking a car in part exchange, the company would initially offer the correct market value. If the customer wanted, the company would agree a higher price. When cars were returned, the company at first reclaimed the VAT on the re-purchase price, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.166842

Rahman T/A Khayam Restaurant v Commissioner of Customs and Excise: Admn 11 Jun 1998

The court described the existing practice for a tribunal to look at a challenge to an assessment to VAT which was that the Tribunal should adopt a ‘two stage approach’: ‘ the practice is to consider these cases in two stages: (1) consideration whether the assessment was made according to the ‘best judgment of the Commissioners’; if not, the assessment fails, and stage (2) does not arise; (2) if the assessment survives stage (1), consideration whether the amount of the assessment should be reduced by reference to further evidence or further argument available to the Tribunal . . ‘
Held: The two stage approach was dangerous: ‘There is a risk, however, that the emphasis of the debate before the Tribunal will be distorted. If I am right in my interpretation of Van Boeckel, it is only in a very exceptional case that an assessment will be upset because of a failure by the Commissioners to exercise best judgment. In the normal case the important issue will be the amount of the assessment. The danger of the two-stage approach is that it reverses the emphasis . . ‘ and ‘This case illustrates the dangers of an over-rigid adherence to the two-stage approach. I do not wish to diminish in any way from the importance of guidance given by Woolf J to inspectors as to how to exercise their best judgment when making assessments. However, when the matter comes to the Tribunal, it will be rare that the assessment can justifiably be rejected altogether on the ground of a failure to follow that guidance. The principal concern of the Tribunal should be to ensure that the amount of the assessment is fair, taking into account not only the Commissioners’ judgment but any other points that are raised before them by the appellant.’

Judges:

Woolf J

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 627, [1998] STC 826

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Rahman v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Dec-2002
The taxpayer appealed aganst rejection of his objection to an assessment to VAT . .
Cited – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise CA 27-Jul-2004
The taxpayer complained that the assessment imposed by the Commissioners was wholly unreasonable, and void. The tribunal had found the assessment wholly unreasonable, but the High Court had allowed the Commissioners’ appeal.
Held: There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.138748

Pegasus Birds Ltd v H M Customs and Excise: Admn 27 Nov 1998

The Excise Commissioners eventually issued an assessment to VAT in 1997 for 1993 after commencing their investigations in 1993.
Held: Section 73 did not operate as a full bar to the Commissioners making an assessment after the one year where information was only later obtained. The time limit should run only from the date on which the last piece of evidence necessary for making the assessment came to the knowledge of the Commissioners. This was a matter for the ‘best judgement’ of the Commissioner. The Commissioner had not been unreasonable in delaying the assessment until the final piece of evidence allowing an assessment fell into place, and time ran from that time against him.

Judges:

Dyson J

Citations:

[1998] EWHC Admin 1096, [1999] STC 95, [1999] 1 CL 496, [1999] BTC 5003

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 73(6)(b)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 22-Oct-1997
The taxpayer asserted that the Commissioner’s assessment to VAT were out of time and had not been made to the inspector’s ‘best judgment’. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 10-Feb-2000
The company were said to have kept inadequate VAT Records. The parties disputed the sums due or evaded, and an assessment was only finally issued in 1997, at which point the taxpayer said that the assessment was out of time under section 73(6)(b). . .
See Also – Commissioners of H M Customs and Excise v Pegasus Birds Limited ChD 7-Nov-2003
The Commissioners appealed from a decision of the Vat and Duties Tribunal . .
Cited – Saddiq v Revenue and Customs (Excise Duty Tobacco : Hand Rolling) FTTTx 29-Jul-2015
FTTTx Excise Duty – hand-rolling tobacco – seizure as UK duty unpaid – whether assessment out-of-time – No – Section 12(1A) FA 1994 – Appeal dismissed . .
See Also – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Customs and Excise VDT 7-Jun-2002
The Tribunal was asked whether an assessment to VAT notified to the Respondent Company, Pegasus Birds Limited and contained in a formal notice of assessment was made to best judgment.
Held: It was not. The Respondent’s appeal succeeded. . .
See Also – Pegasus Birds Ltd v Commissioners of HM Customs and Excise CA 27-Jul-2004
The taxpayer complained that the assessment imposed by the Commissioners was wholly unreasonable, and void. The tribunal had found the assessment wholly unreasonable, but the High Court had allowed the Commissioners’ appeal.
Held: There was no . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.139218

Virgin Atlantic Airways Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 16 Feb 1995

Supply of limousine service with airline ticket not separate taxable supply. It was incidental to the supply of air transport, and accordingly zero-rated.

Citations:

Times 16-Feb-1995, Ind Summary 03-Apr-1995

Statutes:

Value added Tax Act 1983 3(2)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Transport

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.90175

Royal and Sun Alliance Insurance Group plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 12 Oct 2000

Tenants of long lease where the landlord had elected to charge VAT, decided to seek sub-tenants. They delayed election themselves in order to assist such sub-tenants, but eventually waved their exemption and sought to reclaim the VAT paid to their own landlords. The commissioners objected. The deduction system was fundamental, and intended to relieve businesses of liability for the final responsibility for VAT, the payments which had been made were properly cost payments within the Directive, and the rentals could not be seen as a series of short lived inputs.

Citations:

Gazette 12-Oct-2000

Statutes:

VAT Regulations 1995/2518, Value Added Tax Act 1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Landlord and Tenant, VAT

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.88885

Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise, ex Parte Kay and Co; Regina v Same, ex Parte Similar: CA 10 Dec 1996

The commissioners had no power to impose time limits on retrospective refund claims.

Judges:

Keene J

Citations:

Times 10-Dec-1996, [1996] STC 1500

Statutes:

Bill of Rights 1688, Value Added Tax Act 1994 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appeal from – Regina v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ex parte Kay and Co, Association of Optometrists, Colaingrove Ltd, Greenlee Group Plc, Rayner and Keeler, National Provident Institution, Allied Domecq Plc, Wardens of Commonality etc Admn 19-Nov-1996
. .

Cited by:

Cited – DFS Furniture Company Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 16-Mar-2004
The taxpayers said that the Commissioners’ assessment to VAT was out of time, and appealed a finding that it was not. They said that time should run from the point at which the Commissioners knew the facts upon which the assessment was based. The . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Constitutional

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.86417

Primback Ltd v Customs and Excise Commissioners: QBD 12 Sep 1994

An undisclosed discount for interest free credit given by a retailer was not allowable, and VAT was payable on the full amount.

Citations:

Ind Summary 12-Sep-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – 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. . .
At QBD – Primback Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise ECJ 15-May-2001
A company made arrangements for finance for its customers to purchase products at an apparent zero rate of interest. In fact the finance company deducted an undisclosed commission before forwarding payment to the shop. The shop wanted to pay VAT . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 28 April 2022; Ref: scu.85038

Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan Voor De Intercollegiale Toetsing v Staatssecretaris van Financien: ECJ 11 Dec 2008

Sixth VAT Directive Article 13A(1)(f) Exemptions Conditions Services supplied by independent groups Services supplied to one or several members of the group

Citations:

[2008] EUECJ C-407/07, [2008] STI 2785, ECLI:EU:C:2008:713, [2009] STC 869, [2009] CEC 534, [2009] 1 CMLR 43

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – Stichting Centraal Begeleidingsorgaan Voor De Intercollegiale Toetsing v Staatssecretaris van Financien ECJ 9-Oct-2008
ECJ (Opinion) VAT – Exemptions for activities in the public interest – Exemption for services supplied to members by groups of persons whose activities are exempt Whether applicable to services provided to . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.622709

Viking Motors and Others v Tallinna linn and Another: ECJ 7 Aug 2018

Common System of Value Added Tax (Vat) – Turnover Taxes – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 401 – Domestic taxes which can be characterised as turnover taxes – Prohibition – Concept of ‘turnover tax’ – Local sales tax – Essential characteristics of VAT – None

Citations:

C-475/17, [2018] EUECJ C-475/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 27 April 2022; Ref: scu.621623

Marcandi Ltd v Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs: ECJ 5 Jul 2018

VAT – Issuing of ‘Credits’ That Can Be Used To Place Bids In Online Auctions – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 2(1)(c) – Issuing of ‘credits’ that can be used to place bids in online auctions – Supply of services for consideration – Preliminary transaction – Article 73 – Taxable amount

Citations:

[2018] WLR(D) 419, ECLI:EU:C:2018:540, C-544/16, [2018] EUECJ C-544/16

Links:

WLRD, Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620031

Marle Participations SARL v Ministre de l’Economie et des Finances,: ECJ 5 Jul 2018

Vat – Direct or Indirect Involvement of A Holding Company In The Management of Its Subsidiaries – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 2, 9 and 168 – Economic activity – Direct or indirect involvement of a holding company in the management of its subsidiaries – Letting of a building by a holding company to its subsidiary – Deduction of input tax – VAT paid by a holding company on expenditure incurred in acquiring shares in other companies

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:537, [2018] EUECJ C-320/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620032

SIA ‘E LATS’ v Valsts ienemumu dienests: ECJ 11 Jul 2018

Vat – Special Arrangements for Second-Hand Goods – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 311(1)(1) – Special arrangements for second-hand goods – Definition of ‘second-hand goods’ – Goods containing precious metals or precious stones resold by a trader – Processing of those goods after sale – Recovery of the precious metals or precious stones – Concept of ‘precious metals or precious stones’

Citations:

C-154/17, [2018] EUECJ C-154/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:560

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620016

Cartrans Spedition Srl v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice Ploiesti: ECJ 12 Jul 2018

VAT – Exemptions – Transport Services Connected With The Export of Goods – Opinion
Reference for a preliminary ruling – VAT – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 146(1)(e) and 153 – Exemptions – Transport services connected with the export of goods – Proof that the goods have been exported outside EU territory – System established by the Customs Convention on the international transport of goods – TIR carnets

Citations:

C-495/17, [2018] EUECJ C-495/17 – O, ECLI:EU:C:2018:573

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 25 April 2022; Ref: scu.620004

Varna Holideis EOOD v Direktor na Direktsia ‘Obzhalvane i danachno-osiguritelna praktika’: ECJ 27 Jun 2018

(Vat – Immovable Property Effected Prior To The Accession of The Republic of Bulgaria – Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Supply of immovable property effected prior to the accession of the Republic of Bulgaria to the European Union – Nullity of the contract of sale coming to light after the accession – Obligation to adjust the initial deduction – Interpretation – Jurisdiction of the Court

Citations:

C-364/17, [2018] EUECJ C-364/17, ECLI:EU:C:2018:500

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.619032

X v Skatteverket: 18 Nov 2010

Citations:

[2010] EUECJ C-84/09

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

Opinion – X v Skatteverket ECJ 6-May-2010
ECJ Value-added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Intra-Community acquisition of a new sailing boat – Use of goods in the State of origin or another Member State before being transported to the Member State of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 24 April 2022; Ref: scu.618440

Redwood Birkhill Ltd v Revenue and Customs (Tax): UTTC 11 Jun 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – Supply – Characterisation of supply – Discounts paid by brewers to a company in respect of its own and other publicans’ purchases – Aggregation used to obtain higher discounts – Proportion retained by company not disclosed to publicans – whether properly characterised as a supply of a service by the company to the publicans – yes.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 189 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617299

Revenue and Customs v Wetheralds Construction Ltd: UTTC 30 May 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – reduced rate supply -energy saving materials – whether appellant’s Solid Roof System a supply of insulation for roofs within VATA 1994 Schedule 7A Group 2 – no – appeal allowed

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 173 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Construction

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.617296

Vadan v Agentia Nationala de Administrare Fiscala and Others: ECJ 30 May 2018

Vat – Principle of Vat Neutrality – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 167, 168, 178, 179 and 273 – Principle of VAT neutrality – Right to deduct input tax – Substantive requirements – Formal requirements – Absence of invoices

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:346, [2018] EUECJ C-664/16 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616987

Vamos v Nemzeti Ado- es Vamhivatal Fellebbviteli Igazgatosaga: ECJ 17 May 2018

Taxation – Vat – Special Scheme for Small Enterprises – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 282 to 292 – Special scheme for small enterprises – Exemption scheme – Obligation to opt for the application of the special scheme in the reference calendar year

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:321, [2018] EUECJ C-566/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616988

Finanzamt Frankfurt am Main V-Hochst v Deutsche Bank AG: ECJ 19 Jul 2012

Directive 2006/112/EC – Article 56(1)(e) – Article 135(1)(f) and (g) – Exemption for transactions relating to the management of securities-based assets (portfolio management)
Sharpston AG said: ‘ in connection with exemptions, fiscal neutrality ‘is not a fundamental principle or a rule of primary law which can condition the validity of an exemption but a principle of interpretation, to be applied concurrently with – and as a limitation on – the principle of strict interpretation of exemptions’.’

Judges:

J.N. Cunha Rodrigues, P

Citations:

[2012] EUECJ C-44/11, [2012] STC 1951, [2012] STI 2731

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

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: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616746

Revenue and Customs v Summit Electrical Installations Ltd: UTTC 18 May 2018

VAT – supplies in the course of construction of student accommodation – Item 2 of Group 5 of Schedule 8 to VATA 1994 – Note (2)(c) – whether separate use of dwelling is prohibited by planning consent – No – Appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 176 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 22 April 2022; Ref: scu.616371

Sargent v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ChD 18 Nov 1993

VAT in rents received by receiver was payable to customs. The receiver is a VAT taxable person even if he is appointed under a floating charge.

Citations:

Times 18-Nov-1993, Gazette 02-Mar-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Sargent v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 23-Feb-1995
Property company receiver liable to pay VAT collected on rents to Commissioners. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Landlord and Tenant, Insolvency

Updated: 20 April 2022; Ref: scu.89009

Revenue and Customs v University of Cambridge: CA 27 Mar 2018

The court decided to make a reference to the CJEU because it concluded that the correct approach to be taken to the issue of attribution was not acte clair.

Citations:

[2018] EWCA Civ 568, [2018] BVC 16, [2018] STC 848, [2018] STI 977

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Reference from – The Chancellor, Masters and Scholars of The University of Cambridge ECJ 3-Jul-2019
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Deduction of input tax – Management costs of an endowment fund that makes investments with the aim of financing the whole of the taxable person’s output transactions – Overheads . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart and Son Ltd SC 29-Jul-2019
The question was whether a taxpayer can deduct as input tax the VAT which it has incurred in purchasing entitlements to an EU farm subsidy, the Single Farm Payment. The taxpayer had used those entitlements to annual subsidies over several years and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Charity, European

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.608356

Vereniging Noordelijke Land- En Tuinbouw Organisatie: ECJ 22 Dec 2008

Europa (Taxation) Articles 6 (2), first subparagraph, and 17 of the Sixth VAT Directive Goods and services used partly for the needs of the undertaking and partly for non-economic activities Concept of’ non-company purposes’ The professional estate of the taxable person Possibility of immediate and full deduction of the VAT on the purchase of goods and services other than capital goods

Citations:

C-515/07, [2008] EUECJ C-515/07 – O, [2009] ECR I-839, [2009] STC 935

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opimion – Vereniging Noordelijke Land- En Tuinbouw Organisatie ECJ 12-Feb-2009
Sixth VAT Directive Goods and services forming part of the assets of a business for use in taxable transactions and in transactions other than taxable transactions Right to an immediate and full deduction of the tax paid in respect of the . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart and Son Ltd SC 29-Jul-2019
The question was whether a taxpayer can deduct as input tax the VAT which it has incurred in purchasing entitlements to an EU farm subsidy, the Single Farm Payment. The taxpayer had used those entitlements to annual subsidies over several years and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 18 April 2022; Ref: scu.280005

Securenta Gottinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermogensmanagement AG / legal successor of Gottinger Vermogensanlagen AG v Finanzamt Gottingen: ECJ 13 Mar 2008

ECJ Sixth VAT Directive Taxable person simultaneously carrying out economic activities, taxable or exempt, and non-economic activities Right to deduct input VAT Expenditure connected with the issue of shares and atypical silent partnerships Apportionment of input VAT according to the economic nature of the activity Calculation of the deductible proportion

Citations:

[2008] EUECJ C-437/06, [2008] STC 3473, [2008] STI 939, ECLI:EU:C:2008:166, [2008] ECR I-1597

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Citing:

See Also – Securenta Gottinger Immobilienanlagen und Vermogensmanagement AG / legal successor of Gottinger Vermogensanlagen AG v Finanzamt Gottingen ECJ 11-Dec-2007
ECJ Taxation – VAT Council Directive 77/388/EEC Deduction of input tax Expenditure connected with the issue of shares and atypical silent partnerships Apportionment of the input tax between economic and . .

Cited by:

Cited – Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart and Son Ltd SC 29-Jul-2019
The question was whether a taxpayer can deduct as input tax the VAT which it has incurred in purchasing entitlements to an EU farm subsidy, the Single Farm Payment. The taxpayer had used those entitlements to annual subsidies over several years and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.575288

Revenue and Customs, Appeal By Against A Decision of The Upper Tribunal In An Appeal By Frank A Smart and Son Limited: SCS 8 Dec 2017

Judges:

Lord Drummond Young

Citations:

[2017] ScotCS CSIH – 77, 2018 GWD 1-30, [2018] BVC 3, 2018 SC 229, [2018] STC 806, 2018 SLT 1

Links:

Bailii

Statutes:

Council Directive (EC) 2006/112/EC

Jurisdiction:

Scotland

Cited by:

Appeal From – Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart and Son Ltd SC 29-Jul-2019
The question was whether a taxpayer can deduct as input tax the VAT which it has incurred in purchasing entitlements to an EU farm subsidy, the Single Farm Payment. The taxpayer had used those entitlements to annual subsidies over several years and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, European

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.605066

BLP Group v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: ECJ 6 Apr 1995

The use of taxable goods for an exempt transaction disallowed a claim against VAT input tax. The use in that provision of the words ‘for transactions’ shows that to give the right to deduct under paragraph 2, the goods or services in question must have a direct and immediate link with the taxable transactions, and that the ultimate aim pursued by the taxable person is irrelevant in this respect. The principle of neutrality must co-exist with other general principles, such as the objective of legal certainty.
ECJ Article 2 of the First Directive 67/227 and Article 17 of the Sixth Directive 77/388 on the harmonization of the laws of the Member States relating to turnover taxes are to be interpreted as meaning that, except in the cases expressly provided for by those directives, where a taxable person supplies services to another taxable person who uses them for an exempt transaction, the latter person is not entitled to deduct the input value added tax paid, even if the ultimate purpose of the exempt transaction is the carrying out of a taxable transaction. The wording of those provisions shows that to give rise to the right to deduct, the goods or services in question must have a direct and immediate link with the taxable transactions, and that the ultimate aim pursued by the taxable person is irrelevant in this respect.

Judges:

C. Gulmann, P

Citations:

Times 17-Apr-1995, [1995] ECR I-983, [1995] ECR I-983, [1996] 1 WLR 174, [1995] STC 424, [1995] EUECJ C-4/94, [1995] BVC 159, [1995] 2 CMLR 75, [1995] All ER (EC) 401

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Cited – Commissioners for Customs and Excise v Southern Primary Housing Limited CA 18-Nov-2003
The land owner had elected to pay VAT on the purchase of land. It sought to recover that VAT. The Commissioners appealed an order allowing that.
Held: Ther were three transactions, the purchase, the sale, and a development contract. The input . .
Cited – Lex Services plc v Her Majestys Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 4-Dec-2003
When taking a car in part exchange, the company would initially offer the correct market value. If the customer wanted, the company would agree a higher price. When cars were returned, the company at first reclaimed the VAT on the re-purchase price, . .
Cited – Church of England Children’s Society v Revenue and Customs ChD 29-Jul-2005
The Society sent out free newsletters to its unpaid fund-raisers and supporters. They sought to deduct input tax charged to them from the supplies associated with the costs.
Held: The Society might be able to deduct such tax as residual input . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Pendragon Plc and Others SC 10-Jun-2015
‘This appeal is about an elaborate scheme designed and marketed by KPMG relating to demonstrator cars used by retail distributors for test drives and other internal purposes. In the ordinary course, a car distributor will buy new cars for use as . .
Cited – Commissioners of Customs and Excise v Redrow Group Plc HL 11-Feb-1999
Where house builders had paid the estate agents’ fees for exchanged property on sales, the supply had been, at least in part, to the builder, and the builder could accordingly recover the agents’ VAT as input tax. A supplier could be treated as . .
Cited – Revenue and Customs v Frank A Smart and Son Ltd SC 29-Jul-2019
The question was whether a taxpayer can deduct as input tax the VAT which it has incurred in purchasing entitlements to an EU farm subsidy, the Single Farm Payment. The taxpayer had used those entitlements to annual subsidies over several years and . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 17 April 2022; Ref: scu.161263

Peninsular and Oriental Steam Navigation Co v Customs and Excise: ChD 31 May 2000

The appellant operated a passenger ferry which began and finished within EU member states, but passed through international waters. They contended that goods sold otherwise than for immediate consumption were supplied outside the EU, and therefore were exempt supplies. It was held that to achieve that a call at a port outside the EU would be necessary. In the absence of such a call, the supplies were taxable according to the VAT laws of the port of embarkation.

Citations:

Gazette 31-May-2000

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Transport

Updated: 15 April 2022; Ref: scu.84650

Marriott Rewards Llc and Whitbread Group Plc v Revenue and Customs: UTTC 30 Apr 2018

VALUE ADDED TAX – ‘points’ based rewards scheme – whether payments made to redeemers third party consideration for supply of rewards – no – whether redeemers made separate supplies to operator of scheme – yes – whether those separate supplies relate to immovable property or constitute advertising services – no – appeals dismissed.

Citations:

[2018] UKUT 129 (TCC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609721

TGE Gas Engineering GmbH – Sucursal em Portugal v Autoridade Tributaria e Aduaneira: ECJ 3 May 2018

(Opinion) Reference for a preliminary ruling – VAT legislation – Deduction of input tax paid – Concept of provision of services – Distribution of overhead costs of a company’s business activity between the partners

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:302, [2018] EUECJ C-16/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609526

Scialdone: ECJ 2 May 2018

(Judgment) Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Protection of the Union’s financial interests – Article 4 (3) TEU – Article 325 (1) TFEU – Directive 2006/112 / EC – PIF Convention – Sanctions – Principles of equivalence and effectiveness – Failure to pay within the legislated time the VAT resulting from the annual declaration – National legislation providing for a custodial sentence only when the amount of unpaid VAT exceeds a certain threshold of ‘incrimination – National Regulation Providing for a Lower Level of Criminalisation for Failure to Pay Income Tax Deductions at Source

Citations:

ECLI: EU: C: 2018: 295, [2018] EUECJ C-574/15

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609522

Ryanair v The Revenue Commissioners: ECJ 3 May 2018

Taxation – Common System of Value Added Tax – Concept of Taxable Person – Opinion – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Common system of value added tax – Concept of taxable person – Expenditure for services procured in connection with the acquisition of an undertaking’s entire share capital – Right of deduction – Unsuccessful takeover of a competitor

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:301, [2018] EUECJ C-249/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609520

Zabrus Siret v Directia Generala Regionala a Finantelor Publice IasI: ECJ 26 Apr 2018

ECJ Vat – Deduction of Input Tax – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Directive 2006/112/EC – Common system of value added tax (VAT) – Deduction of input tax – Right to a refund of VAT – Transactions relating to a tax period that has already been the subject of a tax inspection which has concluded – National legislation – Possibility for the taxable person to correct tax returns which have already been covered by a tax inspection – Precluded – Principle of effectiveness – Fiscal neutrality – Legal certainty

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:283, [2018] EUECJ C-81/17

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609335

Newton Business Parks v Revenue and Customs: FTTTx 18 Apr 2018

VAT – Penalties : Reasonable Excuse
VAT – default surcharges – cash flow difficulties allegedly caused by capital repayments being required by the Appellant’s mortgagee and HMRC refusing repayment proposals for historic debts – whether or not a reasonable excuse – no – appeal dismissed

Citations:

[2018] UKFTT 218 (TC)

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 14 April 2022; Ref: scu.609284

Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo: ECJ 19 Apr 2018

ECJ Common System of Value Added Tax – Deduction of Input Tax – Opinion – Request for a preliminary ruling – Common system of value added tax – Deduction of input tax – Acquisition of capital goods – Allocation of the capital goods where their intended economic use remains uncertain – Original use for a (public authority) activity which does not confer entitlement to deduct input tax – Subsequent use for a taxable activity (change of use) – Subsequent deduction of input tax by means of an adjustment of the deduction

Citations:

C-140/17, [2018] EUECJ C-140/17 – O

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

Cited by:

Opinion – Szef Krajowej Administracji Skarbowej v Gmina Ryjewo ECJ 25-Jul-2018
Reference for a preliminary ruling – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Articles 167, 168 and 184 – Deduction of input tax – Adjustment – Immovable property acquired as capital goods – Initial allocation to an activity which does not . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609057

Firma Hans Buhler KG v Finanzamt Graz-Stadt,: ECJ 19 Apr 2018

ECJ Value Added Tax (Vat) – Judgment – Reference for a preliminary ruling – Taxation – Value added tax (VAT) – Directive 2006/112/EC – Place of intra-Community acquisition – Article 42 – Intra-Community acquisition of goods that are the object of a subsequent supply – Article 141 – Exemption – Triangular transaction – Simplification measures – Article 265 – Correction of recapitulative statement

Citations:

ECLI:EU:C:2018:261, [2018] EUECJ C-580/16

Links:

Bailii

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT

Updated: 13 April 2022; Ref: scu.609056

British United Provident Association Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; etc: Admn 23 Jan 1997

In determining whether what would otherwise be two supplies should be regarded as a single supply the court has to ask itself whether one element is an ‘integral part’ of the other, or is ‘ancillary’ or ‘incidental’ to the other; or (in the decisions of the Court of Justice) whether the two elements are ‘physically and economically dissociable.’ This, however, merely replaces one question with another. In order to answer this further question, the court must consider ‘what is the true and substantial nature of the consideration given for the payment’. There are, however, limits to this process. Where supplies are made by different suppliers, they cannot be fused together to make a single supply; and it is probably only in relatively simple transactions that the reduction of multiple to single supplies is appropriate.

Judges:

Millett L.J

Citations:

[1997] EWHC Admin 52, [1997] STC 445

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See also – Customs and Excise Commissioners v Wellington Private Hospital Ltd and Others QBD 30-May-1995
Medicines provided by hospitals from own stocks and prostheses are exempt supplies. . .
Cited – Bophuthatswana National Commercial Corporation v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 13-Sep-1993
The services of a company representing an unrecognized nation may be chargeable. The court must consider ‘what is the true and substantial nature of the consideration given for the payment’. . .

Cited by:

See Also – Customs and Excise Commissioners v Wellington Private Hospital Ltd and Others QBD 30-May-1995
Medicines provided by hospitals from own stocks and prostheses are exempt supplies. . .
Cited – Nell Gwynn House Maintenance Fund v Commissioners of Customs and Excise HL 15-Dec-1998
Trustees who managed a group of apartments argued that they did not themselves provide staff services to the tenants, but rather arranged for the staff to provide services to them.
Held: The contract providing cleaning and other services, by a . .
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 . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 12 April 2022; Ref: scu.136997

Trustees of the Nell Gwynn House Maintenance Fund v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 31 Oct 1994

Trustees of flats were liable to VAT on maintenance staff wages. The provision of their services was not an exempt supply.

Citations:

Ind Summary 24-Oct-1994, Times 31-Oct-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Trustees of the Nell Gwynn House Maintenance Fund v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 1996
. .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.90009

Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners: QBD 20 Jun 1994

Supplies for mixed business entertainment and other uses are to be apportioned.

Citations:

Ind Summary 20-Jun-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – Thorn EMI Plc v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 5-Jun-1995
VAT on services for business and entertainment is apportionable between them. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 10 April 2022; Ref: scu.89880

North of England Zoological Society v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 20 Oct 1999

For VAT purposes, as opposed to other forms of taxation, educational purposes meant education within a more formal class or lesson type structure. A zoo, open to the public but employing education officers to assist with education of visitors was not exempt from charging VAT upon its entrance fees. The education offered did not come within this definition.

Citations:

Times 02-Nov-1999, Gazette 20-Oct-1999

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 31 Sch 9, Group 6, 1(a)

VAT, Education, VAT

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.84344

Marks and Spencer Plc v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 19 Jan 1999

Reclaims of overpaid VAT are governed by our domestic legislation, and not by European VAT law. Zero-rate is not a tax set under European law. Limitations on reclaims are therefore properly set by our national legislation. Unjust enrichment explored.

Citations:

Times 19-Jan-1999

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 80

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, European

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.83413

Julius Fillibeck Sohne Gmbh and Co Kg v Finanzamt Neustadt: ECJ 27 Nov 1997

Transport which was provided to a company’s workers in order to get to employment and where there was no real connection between the transport and the type of work was not a vatable supply.

Citations:

Times 27-Nov-1997

Statutes:

Council Directive 77/388/EEC

Jurisdiction:

European

VAT, Employment

Updated: 09 April 2022; Ref: scu.82648

John Dee Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 17 Feb 1995

VAT Tribunal has an appellate not a supervisory jurisdiction – no re-hearing.

Citations:

Times 17-Feb-1995

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1983 40(1)(n)

Cited by:

Appeal from – John Dee Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 20-Jul-1995
There was no ‘fresh discretion’ power in the VAT tribunal on appeal if Commissioner’s decision flawed. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82532

Institute of the Motor Industry v Customs and Excise Commissioners: ECJ 19 Nov 1998

A trade union could be any organisation of employees, workers, employers, independent professionals or traders which took upon itself representation of its members interests as against third parties, and any such is VAT exempt.

Citations:

Times 19-Nov-1998

Statutes:

Sixth Council Directive 77/388/EEC Art 13(A)(1)(1)

VAT, European

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.82384

House (T/A P and J Autos) v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 7 Jan 1994

A VAT assessment issued by the Commissioners may cover several periods if the figures are calculable.

Citations:

Ind Summary 10-Jan-1994, Times 07-Jan-1994

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Cited by:

Appeal from – House T/A P and J Autos v Customs and Excise Commissioners CA 20-Oct-1995
A global assessment to VAT over several periods made by the Commissioners was not invalid just because separate assessments were also possible. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81490

Gus Merchandise Corporation Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 25 Oct 1993

A taxpayer accepting the Scheme H calculation basis cannot reclaim overpayments.

Citations:

Ind Summary 25-Oct-1993

Cited by:

Appeal from – Gus Merchandise Corporation Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise CA 24-Oct-1994
The Commissioners’ general tax management powers include a power to enter into a binding contract with taxpayers as to the method of calculation of Excess VAT paid on sales to agents was not recoverable since there was a binding agreement. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.81094

Georgiou and Another v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 19 Oct 1995

The VAT tribunal may assess whether the Commissioner had acted on the basis of his best judgment. Evans LJ discussed appeals on fact disguised as appeals on law: ‘There is a well-recognised need for caution in permitting challenges to findings of fact on the ground that they raise this kind of question of law. That is well seen in arbitration cases and in many others. It is all too easy for a so-called question of law to become no more than a disguised attack on findings of fact which must be accepted by the courts. As this case demonstrates, it is all too easy for the appeals procedure to the High Court to be misused in this way. Secondly, the nature of the factual inquiry which an appellate court can and does undertake in a proper case is essentially different from the decision-making process which is undertaken by the tribunal of fact. The question is not, has the party upon whom rests the burden of proof established on the balance of probabilities the facts upon which he relies, but, was there evidence before the tribunal which was sufficient to support the finding which it made? In other words, was the finding one which the tribunal was entitled to make? Clearly, if there was no evidence, or the evidence was to the contrary effect, the tribunal was not so entitled.
It follows, in my judgment, that for a question of law to arise in the circumstances, the appellant must first identify the finding which is challenged; secondly, show that it is significant in relation to the conclusion; thirdly, identify the evidence, if any, which was relevant to that finding; and, fourthly, show that that finding, on the basis of that evidence, was one which the tribunal was not entitled to make. What is not permitted, in my view, is a roving selection of evidence coupled with a general assertion that the tribunal’s conclusion was against the weight of the evidence and was therefore wrong. A failure to appreciate what is the correct approach accounts for much of the time and expense that was occasioned by this appeal to the High Court.’

Judges:

Evans LJ

Citations:

Times 19-Oct-1995, [1996] STC 463

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 83 84

Cited by:

Cited – Gaines-Cooper v HM Revenue and Customs ChD 13-Nov-2007
The parties disputed the domicile of the tax-payer. He had a domicile of origin in the UK, but asserted that he had acquired a domicile of choice in the Seychelles. The Special Commissioners had allowed, in assessing the domicile at any time, of . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Litigation Practice

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80799

Frank Galliers Ltd v Commissioners of Customs and Excise: QBD 15 Feb 1993

Reasonable excuse for misdeclaration on VAT return. Where a company relied upon the return having been prepared by someone else, the tribunal could look behind the assertion to examine the underlying reason for the misdeclaration. It should be no more difficult to establish the reasonable cause excuse when the company had relied upon a third party than if the return had been prepared internally.

Citations:

Ind Summary 15-Feb-1993

Statutes:

Finance Act 1985 32(2)(b)

VAT

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.80658

Customs and Excise Commissioners v A and D Goddard (A Firm): ChD 17 May 2001

The taxpayer had re-claimed input VAT on mobile phones, but no output tax was due because they were to be sold outside the UK. The commissioners alleged fraud and refused the refund. On appeal the commissioners at first withdrew the allegation of fraud, and sought to add other grounds. They were allowed a time within which to file new pleadings. In the absence of such filing, the appeal was allowed, despite a request to re-instate the allegations of fraud. The Commissioners in turn appealed. They filed. Arguments they sought to enter had not been raised earlier. The Commissioners had still disclosed no arguable or sustainable case, and it would be wrong for an appeal court to substitute its own discretion for that of the tribunal, merely in order to preserve a substantial sum for the public revenue..

Citations:

Gazette 17-May-2001

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT, Taxes Management

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79746

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Wellington Private Hospital Ltd and Others: QBD 30 May 1995

Medicines provided by hospitals from own stocks and prostheses are exempt supplies.

Citations:

Ind Summary 30-May-1995

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1994 Sch 8 grp 12 1 and 2

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

See Also – British United Provident Association Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; etc Admn 23-Jan-1997
In determining whether what would otherwise be two supplies should be regarded as a single supply the court has to ask itself whether one element is an ‘integral part’ of the other, or is ‘ancillary’ or ‘incidental’ to the other; or (in the . .

Cited by:

See also – British United Provident Association Limited v Commissioners of Customs and Excise; etc Admn 23-Jan-1997
In determining whether what would otherwise be two supplies should be regarded as a single supply the court has to ask itself whether one element is an ‘integral part’ of the other, or is ‘ancillary’ or ‘incidental’ to the other; or (in the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79744

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Dennis Rye Ltd: QBD 25 Jul 1995

The builder had purchased two plots of land which it held as trading stock. It sought to set off the the VAT on the costs, but the issue was how it should have been apportioned with respect to the acquisition of goods or services and non-taxable residual inputs including its office supplies.
Held: The commisioners had to find a fair apportionment to taxable supplies. The taxpayers own calculations had distorted the picture, and the tax paid on the acquisition of the two plots should have been excluded.

Judges:

McCullough J

Citations:

Ind Summary 21-Aug-1995, (1996) STC 27

Statutes:

Value Added Tax Act 1983 15(3)

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

VAT

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79723

Customs and Excise Commissioners v Marchday Holdings Ltd: QBD 31 Jul 1995

A before and after test is to be used to see whether a work is a new building or a conversion of an old building.

Citations:

Ind Summary 31-Jul-1995

Jurisdiction:

England and Wales

Citing:

Appealed to – Commissioners for Customs and Excise v Marchday Holdings Limited CA 11-Dec-1996
Extensive work on an existing building may be more than a conversion and therefore may be zero-rated. . .

Cited by:

Appeal from – Commissioners for Customs and Excise v Marchday Holdings Limited CA 11-Dec-1996
Extensive work on an existing building may be more than a conversion and therefore may be zero-rated. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

VAT, Construction

Updated: 08 April 2022; Ref: scu.79734