‘HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) should not look beyond the contractual arrangements that govern a company’s structure when establishing liability for VAT unless those arrangements do not reflect “economic and commercial reality”, a tribunal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In accordance with a taxpayer’s rights under European Union law, sections 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax act 1994 would be disapplied to enable the taxpayer to recover more than simple interest by seeking to recover in restitution the time value of sums which they wrongly paid.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Doran and another [2015] EWCA Crim 384; [2015] WLR (D) 129
‘A surveillance operation mounted by Revenue and Customs because they suspected that a consignment of cigarettes were being imported with the purpose of evading the duty payable did not result in a disconnection between the goods and the importers. Revenue and Customs were thereby monitoring the import, not controlling it, so that a judge was entitled to find that the importers were “holding” the goods within the meaning of regulation 13(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 and, by that means, were retaining their connection with the goods at the excise duty point.’
WLR Daily, 17th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) has ruled, in Citibank NA v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, that HMRC’s pleadings were “seriously flawed”. When alleging fraud against a taxpayer, HMRC must clearly plead that the taxpayer had a dishonest state of mind.’
RPC Tax Take, 14th January 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘The High Court had jurisdiction to appoint a provisional liquidator notwithstanding the fact that appeals by the company in respect of disputed VAT assessments were pending in the First-tier Tax Tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 16th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Over the summer, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of CLP Holding Company Ltd v Singh (1) & Kaur (2) [2014] EWCA Civ 1103. The case throws up some useful warnings and reminders about VAT on property transfers, the proper construction of contracts and hierarchy clauses.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th October 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Proposed amendments to UK tax rules are being consulted on by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to recognise a new simplified mechanism that is being introduced for reporting VAT owed on the supply of digital services following changes to EU laws.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Two judges taste a range of snacks ‘in moderation’ at tax tribunal hearing and decide that Snowballs are cakes and thus VAT zero-rated.’
Daily Telegraph, 27th June 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina v Ahmad and another: Regina v Fields and others: [2014] UKSC 36; [2014] WLR (D) 264
‘Where the court, in confiscation proceedings, found that the benefit of the relevant criminal conduct had been jointly obtained, each defendant was liable for the whole of the amount of the benefit and no apportionment was to be made between the co-defendants. However, to avoid double recovery by the state, where there was finding of joint obtaining, so that the confiscation order in respect of each defendant was made for the value of the whole benefit, the order would contain the condition that it would not to be enforced to the extent that a sum had been recovered by way of satisfaction of another confiscation order made in relation to the same joint benefit.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 18th June 2014
‘Where the taxpayer made a claim for repayment of VAT which had been paid owing to a mistake, all the consequences of the mistake were to be taken into account in assessing the quantum of his claim. The revenue was, therefore, entitled under section 81(3A) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to take into account both credits and debits and to set off amounts of input tax it had wrongly paid to the taxpayer against the amount the taxpayer now claimed to be repaid in respect of output tax it wrongly paid to the revenue.’
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Hire purchase (HP) agreements will not necessarily amount to a supply of goods for the purposes of VAT liability at the outset of the contract, the UK’s Upper Tax Tribunal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th May 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘The Roald Dahl Museum and Story Centre, dedicated to celebrating the life and work of the author, has won a tax case against HM Revenue and Customs.’
The Independent, 9th April 2014
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘Sections 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 could not be construed in such a way as to conform with European Union law and therefore had to be disapplied so as to allow the claimant companies to pursue their claims to recover the full value of overpaid value added tax.’
WLR Daily, 28th March 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) has insisted it will appeal against a high court decision to award Sir David and Sir Frederick Barclay’s Littlewoods catalogue shopping business £1.2bn in a top-up settlement relating to a long-running legacy VAT dispute.’
The Guardian, 28th March 2014
Source: www.guardian.co.uk
‘A travel company which marketed and arranged the sale of holiday accommodation to holidaymakers through its website was acting as an “agent” for the providers of that accommodation, and so did not have to account for VAT on those sales, the UK’s highest court has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th March 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Freemasons will be denied a multi-million pound tax break after a judge ruled that their governing body was not sufficiently “philanthropic” to be exempt from VAT, despite being the second largest charitable donor in the country.’
Daily Telegraph, 25th February 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
‘The English Bridge Union loses legal challenge against HM Revenue and Customs aimed at reclaiming VAT on competition entry fees.’
Daily Telegraph, 24th February 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Reed Employment Ltd v Revenue and Customs Comrs [2014] EWCA Civ 32; [2014] WLR (D) 23
‘Section 80(3) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994, as inserted, which gave the revenue a possible defence of unjust enrichment for claims made after 26 May 2005 for the recovery of overpaid VAT, without regard to the period in respect of which the claim was made, was not unlawful.’
WLR Daily, 23rd Janaury 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2024