Case Alert - Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust
•
1 like•272 views
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed an appeal from Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust regarding HMRC's right to offset previously claimed input tax against a claim for overpaid output tax. While the theatre had incorrectly accounted for and paid output tax on box office receipts, it had also claimed input tax on refurbishment works. The Court confirmed that under section 81(3A) of the VAT Act, HMRC is entitled to offset the input tax claimed in error to prevent unjust enrichment, effectively putting the Trust back in the position it would have been had VAT been implemented correctly. The Court also found that the offsetting did not infringe EU law principles and the Trust's only remaining appeal option is the Supreme Court.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
![Court of Appeal
Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 684
The Court of Appeal has delivered its judgment in the above case. In a unanimous (3-0)
judgment, the Court has dismissed the taxpayer's appeal which related to whether
HMRC had the right to offset previously claimed input tax against a claim for overpaid
output tax.
The facts of the case are simple. Birmingham Hippodrome (the Trust) operates a
theatre and, historically, it had accounted for output tax on its box office receipts. It
subsequently transpired that, under the VAT Directive, this income should have been
exempt from VAT. However, between 2000 and 2001 the theatre was substantially
refurbished and, on the basis that, at the time of the works, the input VAT was (albeit
incorrectly) attributable to its taxable activities, the input VAT incurred on the works
was claimed by the Trust and repaid by HMRC. Following the eventual resolution of
the three-year cap, the Trust submitted a claim for repayment of the overpaid output
VAT but HMRC then sought to offset the input VAT claimed in relation to the
refurbishment works. The Trust considered that HMRC was not entitled to offset
contending that it was 'out-of-time'. The Upper Tribunal concluded that HMRC did
have the power to offset and the Trust therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal.
In its judgment, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that, under section 81(3A) of the
VAT Act, HMRC is entitled to offset the input tax claimed in error. The Court
confirmed that this outcome has the effect of putting the Trust in the position it would
have been in had the Directive been implemented correctly in the UK during the
relevant period covered by the claim. In other words, while no output VAT should have
been paid at the time, (because the supplies made by the Trust were exempt from
VAT), equally, no input tax should have been claimed either. To do otherwise would
lead to the unjust enrichment of the Trust.
Comment - According to the Court of Appeal, the offsetting allowed for by section
81(3A) does not infringe the principles of effectiveness, equal treatment or legal
certainty and it did not consider that the issues required a reference to the Court of
Justice. Given the unanimous judgment, it would seem that the Trust's only chance of
reversing this decision is to persuade the Supreme Court on appeal that the issues
ought to be referred. The court has also confirmed that HMRC's power to invoke an
offset under section 81(3A) is only available in cases where a taxpayer submits a claim
and does not mean that the normal time limits applicable to HMRC can be ignored.
For further information in
relation to any of the
issues highlighted in this
Case Alert please contact:
The Regions
Stuart Brodie
stuart.brodie@uk.gt.com
London/South East
Karen Robb
karen.robb@uk.gt.com
The Midlands
Mike Sheppard
mike.sheppard@uk.gt.com
© 2014 Grant Thornton UK LLP All rights reserved
‘Grant Thornton’ means Grant Thornton UK LLP, a limited liability partnership
Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide
partnership. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not
liable for one another's acts or omissions.
This publication has been prepared only as a guide. No responsibility can be accepted by us for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining
from acting as a result of any material in this publication.
www.grant-thornton.co.uk
Case Alert](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/birmhip-140523100422-phpapp01/85/Case-Alert-Birmingham-Hippodrome-Theatre-Trust-1-320.jpg)
Recommended
Indirect Tax Update 21/2014
The Court of Appeal ruled that HMRC has the power to offset a previous overclaim of input tax against an overpayment of output tax, even if the normal time limits would bar it. The case involved Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre, which had incorrectly accounted for and paid output tax on exempt box office receipts between 2000-2001. It also claimed input tax on refurbishment works. The Court ruled that HMRC could offset the input tax claimed in error against the theatre's claim for repayment of overpaid output tax, as both errors stemmed from the same original mistake regarding the VAT treatment of box office receipts. This outcome prevents unjust enrichment of the theatre by putting it in the position it would have been in had VAT
Case alert - Zipvit Ltd
The Court of Appeal has issued a unanimous judgment in the appeal by Zipvit Ltd (Zipvit) against the judgment of the Upper Tribunal. Zipvit, like many other businesses, contracted with Royal Mail to supply delivery services. At the relevant time, these services were treated by Royal Mail, Zipvit and HMRC as being exempt from VAT under the UK’s implementation of the ‘postal services’ exemption.
However, following the Court of Justice judgment in the ‘TNT’ case in 2009 (which ruled that VAT exemption only applied to universal postal services), it became clear to all parties (including HMRC) that the mailmedia service provided by Royal Mail should have been liable to VAT at the standard rate.
On that basis, Zipvit submitted a claim for a refund of the input VAT purportedly included in the price it had paid to Royal Mail. HMRC rejected that claim and Zipvit appealed to the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The FTT dismissed the appeal as did the Upper Tribunal.
Now, the Court of Appeal has dismissed Zipvit’s appeal. The judgment issued on 30 June 2018 dismisses the appeal on the basis that Zipvit had no valid VAT invoice to support its claim. A fact regarded as a fatal flaw.
Case Alert - Wiltonpark Ltd & Ors Court of Appeal
This document provides information about Grant Thornton, an accounting organization. It states that Grant Thornton is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd, but that GTIL and its member firms are separate legal entities that do not obligate one another. It also notes that this publication is intended as a guide and Grant Thornton cannot be liable for any losses resulting from relying on the information herein.
Indirect Tax Update 40/2014
The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's decision that the taxpayer failed to demonstrate that paying the disputed tax would cause hardship. As a result, the taxpayer must either pay the tax or withdraw its appeal. This case concerned VAT payments on mobile phones in 2006. HMRC claimed the phone model was not actually available then and assessed the taxpayer to recover the VAT. After years of litigation over hardship appeal rights, the Upper Tribunal dismissed all of the taxpayer's arguments, agreeing with the First-tier Tribunal's original decision. The taxpayer may now either pay the tax or withdraw its appeal.
ITU 34/2016
The document summarizes three recent tax cases:
1) A UK tribunal ruled that a company conducting a management buyout could reclaim VAT on professional fees, as it was part of a VAT group whose overall activities were taxable. This prevents HMRC from isolating an entity within a VAT group.
2) An EU court advisor said Hungary cannot deny a taxpayer's VAT recovery after incorrectly applying the reverse charge mechanism, as that violates neutrality.
3) An EU court ruled that prize money for racehorses was not subject to VAT, and related training costs were deductible overhead, since the horses promoted the business. The training services themselves were taxed at the standard rate.
Indirect Tax Update 41/2014
The document summarizes a recent court case regarding a DIY house builder's claim for VAT refund that was rejected. In the case (HMRC v Asim Patel), the Upper Tribunal allowed HMRC's appeal against the First-Tier Tribunal's decision to allow the VAT refund claim. The Upper Tribunal determined that the First-Tier Tribunal was wrong to allow the appeal as the taxpayer had not furnished valid planning permission within the statutory time limit, as HMRC's new objection argued. As a result, the First-Tier Tribunal's postponement of the initial hearing was unnecessary. Additionally, the Upper Tribunal refused HMRC's application for court costs against the taxpayer, given HMRC's change in grounds for objection.
ITU 20/2016
1) The Upper Tribunal ruled that the transfer of a business into a VAT group can qualify as a transfer of a going concern (TOGC), meaning no VAT is due. This contradicted HMRC's previous policy.
2) HMRC has now reversed its policy in line with the Upper Tribunal's ruling, stating in Revenue & Customs Brief 11/2016 that transfers into and out of a VAT group can be TOGCs if certain conditions are met.
3) A First-tier Tax Tribunal case involved a company that paid VAT on wind turbines from a supplier that went into administration before delivering the goods. The tribunal ruled the company could not reclaim the VAT since the turbines were not supplied.
Case Alert - Bratt Auto Services / Contracts Ltd v HMRC
This document summarizes a tax case from the UK Upper Tribunal regarding claims for overpaid VAT. It discusses that a letter submitted to HMRC claiming overpayment of £1.2 million VAT was rejected because it failed to allocate the amounts to specific VAT accounting periods as required. While businesses may not have precise records, claims must still apportion amounts to quarters to be valid. The Tribunal found the global figure provided was not a valid VAT refund claim under UK law.
Recommended
Indirect Tax Update 21/2014
The Court of Appeal ruled that HMRC has the power to offset a previous overclaim of input tax against an overpayment of output tax, even if the normal time limits would bar it. The case involved Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre, which had incorrectly accounted for and paid output tax on exempt box office receipts between 2000-2001. It also claimed input tax on refurbishment works. The Court ruled that HMRC could offset the input tax claimed in error against the theatre's claim for repayment of overpaid output tax, as both errors stemmed from the same original mistake regarding the VAT treatment of box office receipts. This outcome prevents unjust enrichment of the theatre by putting it in the position it would have been in had VAT
Case alert - Zipvit Ltd
The Court of Appeal has issued a unanimous judgment in the appeal by Zipvit Ltd (Zipvit) against the judgment of the Upper Tribunal. Zipvit, like many other businesses, contracted with Royal Mail to supply delivery services. At the relevant time, these services were treated by Royal Mail, Zipvit and HMRC as being exempt from VAT under the UK’s implementation of the ‘postal services’ exemption.
However, following the Court of Justice judgment in the ‘TNT’ case in 2009 (which ruled that VAT exemption only applied to universal postal services), it became clear to all parties (including HMRC) that the mailmedia service provided by Royal Mail should have been liable to VAT at the standard rate.
On that basis, Zipvit submitted a claim for a refund of the input VAT purportedly included in the price it had paid to Royal Mail. HMRC rejected that claim and Zipvit appealed to the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The FTT dismissed the appeal as did the Upper Tribunal.
Now, the Court of Appeal has dismissed Zipvit’s appeal. The judgment issued on 30 June 2018 dismisses the appeal on the basis that Zipvit had no valid VAT invoice to support its claim. A fact regarded as a fatal flaw.
Case Alert - Wiltonpark Ltd & Ors Court of Appeal
This document provides information about Grant Thornton, an accounting organization. It states that Grant Thornton is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd, but that GTIL and its member firms are separate legal entities that do not obligate one another. It also notes that this publication is intended as a guide and Grant Thornton cannot be liable for any losses resulting from relying on the information herein.
Indirect Tax Update 40/2014
The Upper Tribunal upheld the First-tier Tribunal's decision that the taxpayer failed to demonstrate that paying the disputed tax would cause hardship. As a result, the taxpayer must either pay the tax or withdraw its appeal. This case concerned VAT payments on mobile phones in 2006. HMRC claimed the phone model was not actually available then and assessed the taxpayer to recover the VAT. After years of litigation over hardship appeal rights, the Upper Tribunal dismissed all of the taxpayer's arguments, agreeing with the First-tier Tribunal's original decision. The taxpayer may now either pay the tax or withdraw its appeal.
ITU 34/2016
The document summarizes three recent tax cases:
1) A UK tribunal ruled that a company conducting a management buyout could reclaim VAT on professional fees, as it was part of a VAT group whose overall activities were taxable. This prevents HMRC from isolating an entity within a VAT group.
2) An EU court advisor said Hungary cannot deny a taxpayer's VAT recovery after incorrectly applying the reverse charge mechanism, as that violates neutrality.
3) An EU court ruled that prize money for racehorses was not subject to VAT, and related training costs were deductible overhead, since the horses promoted the business. The training services themselves were taxed at the standard rate.
Indirect Tax Update 41/2014
The document summarizes a recent court case regarding a DIY house builder's claim for VAT refund that was rejected. In the case (HMRC v Asim Patel), the Upper Tribunal allowed HMRC's appeal against the First-Tier Tribunal's decision to allow the VAT refund claim. The Upper Tribunal determined that the First-Tier Tribunal was wrong to allow the appeal as the taxpayer had not furnished valid planning permission within the statutory time limit, as HMRC's new objection argued. As a result, the First-Tier Tribunal's postponement of the initial hearing was unnecessary. Additionally, the Upper Tribunal refused HMRC's application for court costs against the taxpayer, given HMRC's change in grounds for objection.
ITU 20/2016
1) The Upper Tribunal ruled that the transfer of a business into a VAT group can qualify as a transfer of a going concern (TOGC), meaning no VAT is due. This contradicted HMRC's previous policy.
2) HMRC has now reversed its policy in line with the Upper Tribunal's ruling, stating in Revenue & Customs Brief 11/2016 that transfers into and out of a VAT group can be TOGCs if certain conditions are met.
3) A First-tier Tax Tribunal case involved a company that paid VAT on wind turbines from a supplier that went into administration before delivering the goods. The tribunal ruled the company could not reclaim the VAT since the turbines were not supplied.
Case Alert - Bratt Auto Services / Contracts Ltd v HMRC
This document summarizes a tax case from the UK Upper Tribunal regarding claims for overpaid VAT. It discusses that a letter submitted to HMRC claiming overpayment of £1.2 million VAT was rejected because it failed to allocate the amounts to specific VAT accounting periods as required. While businesses may not have precise records, claims must still apportion amounts to quarters to be valid. The Tribunal found the global figure provided was not a valid VAT refund claim under UK law.
ITU 11/2016
The document summarizes three cases from the First-tier Tax Tribunal and Upper Tribunal:
1) The First-tier Tribunal upheld a £59,000 civil evasion penalty against a fish importer for failing to declare imports from Norway and avoiding £300,000 in customs duties. The Tribunal found the failure was deliberate and dishonest.
2) The First-tier Tribunal upheld a 60% civil evasion penalty against a taxpayer who claimed £34,000 in input VAT but provided no records to substantiate the claims during an HMRC inquiry.
3) The Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC's appeal involving a Scottish farmer who purchased farm subsidy entitlement units. The Tribunal found the units were purchased for business purposes,
Case alert Isle of Wight - Court of Appeal
This document summarizes a court case regarding whether local authorities providing off-street car parking should be subject to VAT. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from several Councils and found that exempting local authorities from VAT on car parking activities would distort competition with commercial car parking providers that do pay VAT. The Court agreed with earlier rulings from the First-tier Tax Tribunal and Upper Tribunal that if local authorities did not charge VAT, they could lower prices and impact the profits and prices of commercial competitors operating in the same market.
Indirect Tax Update 04/2014
Indirect Tax Update for week ending 24 January 2014.
Two important Court decisions this week. Firstly, the Court of appeal unanimously rejects Reed Employment Ltd's appeal relating to unjust enrichment. Secondly, the First-tier Tribunal finds that an 'agreement to settle' entered into with a taxpayer was a binding compromise agreement which precluded HMRC from issuing a recovery assessment.
ITU 30/2016
The Upper Tribunal ruled against B&M Retail in their excise duty case against HMRC. While a duty point may have occurred earlier in the supply chain, B&M could not provide evidence that excise duty had been paid previously. As such, B&M was found liable to pay over £5.8 million in excise duty and penalties assessed against them by HMRC. The Tribunal also ruled against a taxpayer in a case involving VAT on stall rentals at craft fairs, finding the supply was of the right to attend the fair, not of land. Finally, in an input VAT reclaim case, the Tribunal found HMRC had acted unreasonably in refusing alternative evidence of payment besides invalid VAT invoices
ITU 31/2016
The Court of Justice ruled that Germany could not deny VAT exemption for the transfer of a vehicle from Germany to Spain by a taxpayer simply because the taxpayer failed to include a VAT number on the invoice, as long as the substantive requirements for exemption were met. The failure to comply with this formal requirement should not prevent exemption from being available, unless tax evasion was suspected. The German law preventing exemption due to missing a VAT number on the invoice violated the purpose of the VAT Directive.
Additionally, the Upper Tribunal affirmed that for VAT groups in the UK, the representative member of the group is entitled to receive any VAT refunds, even if another group member made the supplies and initially overpaid VAT. Individual group members cannot claim refund
ITU 08/2016
The Upper Tribunal has ruled in two cases that:
1) A VAT claim must specify the amount claimed for each relevant VAT accounting period, and a global figure without period allocation is not a valid claim.
2) Amendments to VAT claims are allowed, but substituting the entire reasons for a claim amounts to a new claim, which must be made within the standard time limits.
3) The First-Tier Tribunal dismissed an appeal made four years late, highlighting that tribunal time limits will only be extended in limited circumstances. Advisors must ensure appeals are properly lodged within deadlines.
VAT: Transfer of a Going Concern
The transfer of a business between legal entities is generally treated as the 'transfer of a going concern' (TOGC). In such cases, the transfer is ignored for VAT purposes as if there is no supply when the assets are transferred.
Hitherto, HMRC did not accept that the transfer of a business in or out of a VAT group could qualify as a TOGC where the business was conducted solely within the VAT group.
The case of Intelligent Managed Services Ltd challenged that view at the Upper Tribunal and the company was successful in its appeal.
Indirect Tax Update 30/2015
HMRC has issued two Revenue & Customs Briefs on recent indirect tax issues:
1. Brief 18/2015 provides guidance on VAT treatment of supplies between establishments in different EU countries in light of the Skandia case. Supplies between a UK entity and an establishment in an EU country with Swedish-style VAT groups will be subject to the reverse charge in the UK or EU country.
2. Brief 19/2015 announces that HMRC will make partial VAT refunds to qualifying golf clubs that overpaid VAT on green fees, refunding 33-50% of valid claims depending on green fee prices. This is an interim measure pending the outcome of ongoing litigation.
3. The Upper Tribunal ruled
Indirect Tax Update for week ending 25 April 2014
Highlights this week include a First-tier Tribunal decision on the issue of whether a £71,000 default surcharge imposed by HMRC was disproportionate. Following an earlier consultation, HMRC also makes an announcement that a proposal to extend VAT exemption to supplies of higher education by 'for-profit' organisations is to be shelved.
Case alert VW Financial Services (UK) Ltd v HMRC
This document summarizes a court case between VW Financial Services (VWFS) and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of VWFS on two grounds. First, it found that VWFS was entitled to reclaim value-added tax (VAT) incurred on general overheads, as these overheads had a direct link to both the taxable sale of cars and exempt financing activities. Second, it agreed with VWFS's apportionment of claiming 50% of residual input VAT based on there being two supplies (car and financing) per transaction. The ruling was a major victory for VWFS and loss for HMRC.
ITU 13/2016
Telefonica, an international telecommunications company, had an agreement with HMRC on a method to apportion network access charges between taxable UK usage and non-taxable international usage. HMRC later withdrew this agreement and imposed a new usage-based method. Telefonica sought judicial review. The Tribunal dismissed Telefonica's claims that VAT law required a value-based method and that Telefonica had a legitimate expectation to continue the original method. With over £16 million at stake, Telefonica is expected to seek leave to appeal.
UK: VAT use and enjoyment on advertising services?
Under normal VAT rules, the place of supply of a business to business (B2B) service is the place where the recipient of the service belongs. In cases where the recipient is outside the European Union, this generally means that no EU VAT is chargeable.
However, 'use and enjoyment' provisions allow national Tax Authorities to adapt the place of supply rules outlined in the Principle VAT Directive where they perceive a threat to the tax yield.
We understand that HM Treasury is considering ways in which these provisions could be enacted in relation to advertising services which could be detrimental to the Betting & Gaming Sector.
Case Alert Berkshire Golf Club & others v HMRC
The document summarizes a tax tribunal decision in a case between HMRC and various golf clubs regarding VAT repayment claims. The tribunal ruled that golf clubs should be repaid 90% of VAT claims for "green fees" paid by visitors, rejecting HMRC's argument that full repayment would constitute unjust enrichment. However, the tribunal agreed with HMRC that VAT is due on supplies to corporate customers and tour operators. It also determined expenditure on golf courses could be partially exempt for VAT purposes. Both parties may appeal aspects of the decision to an upper tribunal.
ITU 21/2016
The Upper Tribunal considered two cases related to VAT. In the first case, Zipvit lost its appeal in claiming VAT reimbursement from Royal Mail. The Upper Tribunal determined that without a valid VAT invoice, Zipvit had no right to reclaim input tax, even though VAT may have been properly chargeable. In the second case, the First-Tier Tribunal ruled that denying the same VAT exemption for welfare services to a for-profit organization as granted to charities violated the EU principle of fiscal neutrality. Additionally, the Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC's appeal in the Imperial College case, requiring HMRC to abide by the terms of its original special VAT reimbursement agreement with universities.
Indirect Tax Update 07/2015
The document summarizes three indirect tax cases from the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). The first case discusses Taylor Wimpey PLC's loss in its battle against HMRC regarding VAT on "white goods" supplied with new homes. The second case discusses the FTT ruling that reward payments for achieving sales targets can reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes. The third case summarizes additional FTT decisions regarding partial VAT exemption methods and late filing of VAT refund appeals.
ITU 06/2016
This document summarizes three key topics:
1) It reminds businesses importing goods into the EU that the new Union Customs Code will take effect on May 1, 2016, bringing major changes including new requirements for financial guarantees and adopting a "last sale" value for import declarations.
2) It discusses a tax tribunal case regarding the supply of mobile homes where the tribunal found separate contracts for the home and land, treating the land license as an exempt supply.
3) It notes a rare case where a business successfully argued a reasonable excuse for default surcharges due to a lender not providing funds on time for a VAT payment.
Indirect Tax Update 10 May 2016
This weeks ITU looks at the VAT rules changes for advertising. The basic VAT place of supply rules – the rules that determine where a supply of goods or services takes place – sometimes lead to an outcome which results in supplies not being taxed at all. As an example, the place of supply of advertising services is currently where the customer belongs. If this is not within the EU, then no EU VAT is charged by an EU supplier even though the advertisement in question may be targeted at EU consumers.
HMRC has begun a consultation process which may lead to the imposition of a 'use and enjoyment' rule which, it hopes, will ensure that, in such circumstances, the place of supply will be determined by reference to where the service is targeted and consumed rather than simply where the customer is established.
Case Alert HMRC v VWFS - Supreme Court
This document summarizes a legal case involving Volkswagen Financial Services (VWFS) and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regarding the apportionment of value-added tax (VAT) on overhead costs between VWFS's taxable sales of vehicles and exempt sales of vehicle financing. The UK Supreme Court decided to refer the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on whether VWFS is entitled to reclaim a portion of its overhead VAT costs.
Case Alert - Languard New Homes Ltd - Upper Tribunal
This document summarizes a recent Upper Tribunal ruling on the VAT treatment of property conversions that incorporate both residential and non-residential parts. Specifically:
1) The Tribunal ruled that zero-rating is not available for conversions that incorporate both residential and non-residential parts of the original building into new dwellings.
2) In the case, a former pub was converted into four maisonettes, with the lower two incorporating the original non-residential ground floor and the upper two incorporating the original residential floors.
3) The Tribunal agreed with HMRC that this mixed conversion does not qualify for zero-rating, and the sale would instead be exempt from VAT. Developers cannot claim zero-rating where a
Vat Alert - Distance Selling
This document summarizes a change in HMRC policy regarding the place of supply for VAT purposes of delivered goods sold across borders within the European Union. Specifically, HMRC has adopted an interpretation that the supplier is considered to be delivering the goods if they arrange transportation through a connected or third party, are involved in payment for delivery, or promote transportation services. This change means businesses must review their VAT arrangements for distance sales to other EU member states.
Indirect Tax Update 01/2018
This document provides summaries of three indirect tax cases:
1) The Kreuzmayr GmbH case denied a taxpayer the right to reclaim VAT that was incorrectly charged by its supplier who later went insolvent. The CJEU ruled that the right to recover VAT only applies to VAT that was correctly charged.
2) In the Hammonds of Knutsford PLC case, the Court of Appeal ruled that failure to make goods available for HMRC inspection, as required by regulations, meant the taxpayer was not entitled to an excise duty drawback. The inspection requirement was deemed a substantive condition.
3) The Hastings Insurance Services Ltd case determined that supplies made by a UK company to a customer in Gibraltar took place
ITU 32/2015
The UK Court of Appeal referred the long-running Mercedes-Benz Financial Services VAT case to the Court of Justice of the European Union to determine the meaning of "in the normal course of events" regarding whether a supply is of goods or services. A decision is not expected for several years. Additionally, the CJEU clarified import classification for temperature indicators, and the UK Tax Tribunal upheld two HMRC demands for security payments as conditions for taxpayers to continue trading, finding HMRC acted reasonably given the companies' histories.
More Related Content
What's hot
ITU 11/2016
The document summarizes three cases from the First-tier Tax Tribunal and Upper Tribunal:
1) The First-tier Tribunal upheld a £59,000 civil evasion penalty against a fish importer for failing to declare imports from Norway and avoiding £300,000 in customs duties. The Tribunal found the failure was deliberate and dishonest.
2) The First-tier Tribunal upheld a 60% civil evasion penalty against a taxpayer who claimed £34,000 in input VAT but provided no records to substantiate the claims during an HMRC inquiry.
3) The Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC's appeal involving a Scottish farmer who purchased farm subsidy entitlement units. The Tribunal found the units were purchased for business purposes,
Case alert Isle of Wight - Court of Appeal
This document summarizes a court case regarding whether local authorities providing off-street car parking should be subject to VAT. The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal from several Councils and found that exempting local authorities from VAT on car parking activities would distort competition with commercial car parking providers that do pay VAT. The Court agreed with earlier rulings from the First-tier Tax Tribunal and Upper Tribunal that if local authorities did not charge VAT, they could lower prices and impact the profits and prices of commercial competitors operating in the same market.
Indirect Tax Update 04/2014
Indirect Tax Update for week ending 24 January 2014.
Two important Court decisions this week. Firstly, the Court of appeal unanimously rejects Reed Employment Ltd's appeal relating to unjust enrichment. Secondly, the First-tier Tribunal finds that an 'agreement to settle' entered into with a taxpayer was a binding compromise agreement which precluded HMRC from issuing a recovery assessment.
ITU 30/2016
The Upper Tribunal ruled against B&M Retail in their excise duty case against HMRC. While a duty point may have occurred earlier in the supply chain, B&M could not provide evidence that excise duty had been paid previously. As such, B&M was found liable to pay over £5.8 million in excise duty and penalties assessed against them by HMRC. The Tribunal also ruled against a taxpayer in a case involving VAT on stall rentals at craft fairs, finding the supply was of the right to attend the fair, not of land. Finally, in an input VAT reclaim case, the Tribunal found HMRC had acted unreasonably in refusing alternative evidence of payment besides invalid VAT invoices
ITU 31/2016
The Court of Justice ruled that Germany could not deny VAT exemption for the transfer of a vehicle from Germany to Spain by a taxpayer simply because the taxpayer failed to include a VAT number on the invoice, as long as the substantive requirements for exemption were met. The failure to comply with this formal requirement should not prevent exemption from being available, unless tax evasion was suspected. The German law preventing exemption due to missing a VAT number on the invoice violated the purpose of the VAT Directive.
Additionally, the Upper Tribunal affirmed that for VAT groups in the UK, the representative member of the group is entitled to receive any VAT refunds, even if another group member made the supplies and initially overpaid VAT. Individual group members cannot claim refund
ITU 08/2016
The Upper Tribunal has ruled in two cases that:
1) A VAT claim must specify the amount claimed for each relevant VAT accounting period, and a global figure without period allocation is not a valid claim.
2) Amendments to VAT claims are allowed, but substituting the entire reasons for a claim amounts to a new claim, which must be made within the standard time limits.
3) The First-Tier Tribunal dismissed an appeal made four years late, highlighting that tribunal time limits will only be extended in limited circumstances. Advisors must ensure appeals are properly lodged within deadlines.
VAT: Transfer of a Going Concern
The transfer of a business between legal entities is generally treated as the 'transfer of a going concern' (TOGC). In such cases, the transfer is ignored for VAT purposes as if there is no supply when the assets are transferred.
Hitherto, HMRC did not accept that the transfer of a business in or out of a VAT group could qualify as a TOGC where the business was conducted solely within the VAT group.
The case of Intelligent Managed Services Ltd challenged that view at the Upper Tribunal and the company was successful in its appeal.
Indirect Tax Update 30/2015
HMRC has issued two Revenue & Customs Briefs on recent indirect tax issues:
1. Brief 18/2015 provides guidance on VAT treatment of supplies between establishments in different EU countries in light of the Skandia case. Supplies between a UK entity and an establishment in an EU country with Swedish-style VAT groups will be subject to the reverse charge in the UK or EU country.
2. Brief 19/2015 announces that HMRC will make partial VAT refunds to qualifying golf clubs that overpaid VAT on green fees, refunding 33-50% of valid claims depending on green fee prices. This is an interim measure pending the outcome of ongoing litigation.
3. The Upper Tribunal ruled
Indirect Tax Update for week ending 25 April 2014
Highlights this week include a First-tier Tribunal decision on the issue of whether a £71,000 default surcharge imposed by HMRC was disproportionate. Following an earlier consultation, HMRC also makes an announcement that a proposal to extend VAT exemption to supplies of higher education by 'for-profit' organisations is to be shelved.
Case alert VW Financial Services (UK) Ltd v HMRC
This document summarizes a court case between VW Financial Services (VWFS) and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC). The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of VWFS on two grounds. First, it found that VWFS was entitled to reclaim value-added tax (VAT) incurred on general overheads, as these overheads had a direct link to both the taxable sale of cars and exempt financing activities. Second, it agreed with VWFS's apportionment of claiming 50% of residual input VAT based on there being two supplies (car and financing) per transaction. The ruling was a major victory for VWFS and loss for HMRC.
ITU 13/2016
Telefonica, an international telecommunications company, had an agreement with HMRC on a method to apportion network access charges between taxable UK usage and non-taxable international usage. HMRC later withdrew this agreement and imposed a new usage-based method. Telefonica sought judicial review. The Tribunal dismissed Telefonica's claims that VAT law required a value-based method and that Telefonica had a legitimate expectation to continue the original method. With over £16 million at stake, Telefonica is expected to seek leave to appeal.
UK: VAT use and enjoyment on advertising services?
Under normal VAT rules, the place of supply of a business to business (B2B) service is the place where the recipient of the service belongs. In cases where the recipient is outside the European Union, this generally means that no EU VAT is chargeable.
However, 'use and enjoyment' provisions allow national Tax Authorities to adapt the place of supply rules outlined in the Principle VAT Directive where they perceive a threat to the tax yield.
We understand that HM Treasury is considering ways in which these provisions could be enacted in relation to advertising services which could be detrimental to the Betting & Gaming Sector.
Case Alert Berkshire Golf Club & others v HMRC
The document summarizes a tax tribunal decision in a case between HMRC and various golf clubs regarding VAT repayment claims. The tribunal ruled that golf clubs should be repaid 90% of VAT claims for "green fees" paid by visitors, rejecting HMRC's argument that full repayment would constitute unjust enrichment. However, the tribunal agreed with HMRC that VAT is due on supplies to corporate customers and tour operators. It also determined expenditure on golf courses could be partially exempt for VAT purposes. Both parties may appeal aspects of the decision to an upper tribunal.
ITU 21/2016
The Upper Tribunal considered two cases related to VAT. In the first case, Zipvit lost its appeal in claiming VAT reimbursement from Royal Mail. The Upper Tribunal determined that without a valid VAT invoice, Zipvit had no right to reclaim input tax, even though VAT may have been properly chargeable. In the second case, the First-Tier Tribunal ruled that denying the same VAT exemption for welfare services to a for-profit organization as granted to charities violated the EU principle of fiscal neutrality. Additionally, the Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC's appeal in the Imperial College case, requiring HMRC to abide by the terms of its original special VAT reimbursement agreement with universities.
Indirect Tax Update 07/2015
The document summarizes three indirect tax cases from the First-tier Tribunal (FTT). The first case discusses Taylor Wimpey PLC's loss in its battle against HMRC regarding VAT on "white goods" supplied with new homes. The second case discusses the FTT ruling that reward payments for achieving sales targets can reduce the taxable amount for VAT purposes. The third case summarizes additional FTT decisions regarding partial VAT exemption methods and late filing of VAT refund appeals.
ITU 06/2016
This document summarizes three key topics:
1) It reminds businesses importing goods into the EU that the new Union Customs Code will take effect on May 1, 2016, bringing major changes including new requirements for financial guarantees and adopting a "last sale" value for import declarations.
2) It discusses a tax tribunal case regarding the supply of mobile homes where the tribunal found separate contracts for the home and land, treating the land license as an exempt supply.
3) It notes a rare case where a business successfully argued a reasonable excuse for default surcharges due to a lender not providing funds on time for a VAT payment.
Indirect Tax Update 10 May 2016
This weeks ITU looks at the VAT rules changes for advertising. The basic VAT place of supply rules – the rules that determine where a supply of goods or services takes place – sometimes lead to an outcome which results in supplies not being taxed at all. As an example, the place of supply of advertising services is currently where the customer belongs. If this is not within the EU, then no EU VAT is charged by an EU supplier even though the advertisement in question may be targeted at EU consumers.
HMRC has begun a consultation process which may lead to the imposition of a 'use and enjoyment' rule which, it hopes, will ensure that, in such circumstances, the place of supply will be determined by reference to where the service is targeted and consumed rather than simply where the customer is established.
Case Alert HMRC v VWFS - Supreme Court
This document summarizes a legal case involving Volkswagen Financial Services (VWFS) and Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs (HMRC) regarding the apportionment of value-added tax (VAT) on overhead costs between VWFS's taxable sales of vehicles and exempt sales of vehicle financing. The UK Supreme Court decided to refer the case to the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on whether VWFS is entitled to reclaim a portion of its overhead VAT costs.
Case Alert - Languard New Homes Ltd - Upper Tribunal
This document summarizes a recent Upper Tribunal ruling on the VAT treatment of property conversions that incorporate both residential and non-residential parts. Specifically:
1) The Tribunal ruled that zero-rating is not available for conversions that incorporate both residential and non-residential parts of the original building into new dwellings.
2) In the case, a former pub was converted into four maisonettes, with the lower two incorporating the original non-residential ground floor and the upper two incorporating the original residential floors.
3) The Tribunal agreed with HMRC that this mixed conversion does not qualify for zero-rating, and the sale would instead be exempt from VAT. Developers cannot claim zero-rating where a
Vat Alert - Distance Selling
This document summarizes a change in HMRC policy regarding the place of supply for VAT purposes of delivered goods sold across borders within the European Union. Specifically, HMRC has adopted an interpretation that the supplier is considered to be delivering the goods if they arrange transportation through a connected or third party, are involved in payment for delivery, or promote transportation services. This change means businesses must review their VAT arrangements for distance sales to other EU member states.
What's hot (20)
UK: VAT use and enjoyment on advertising services?
UK: VAT use and enjoyment on advertising services?
Case Alert - Languard New Homes Ltd - Upper Tribunal
Case Alert - Languard New Homes Ltd - Upper Tribunal
Similar to Case Alert - Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust
Indirect Tax Update 01/2018
This document provides summaries of three indirect tax cases:
1) The Kreuzmayr GmbH case denied a taxpayer the right to reclaim VAT that was incorrectly charged by its supplier who later went insolvent. The CJEU ruled that the right to recover VAT only applies to VAT that was correctly charged.
2) In the Hammonds of Knutsford PLC case, the Court of Appeal ruled that failure to make goods available for HMRC inspection, as required by regulations, meant the taxpayer was not entitled to an excise duty drawback. The inspection requirement was deemed a substantive condition.
3) The Hastings Insurance Services Ltd case determined that supplies made by a UK company to a customer in Gibraltar took place
ITU 32/2015
The UK Court of Appeal referred the long-running Mercedes-Benz Financial Services VAT case to the Court of Justice of the European Union to determine the meaning of "in the normal course of events" regarding whether a supply is of goods or services. A decision is not expected for several years. Additionally, the CJEU clarified import classification for temperature indicators, and the UK Tax Tribunal upheld two HMRC demands for security payments as conditions for taxpayers to continue trading, finding HMRC acted reasonably given the companies' histories.
Indirect Tax Update 19/2015
HMRC has issued a brief responding to two recent court losses on VAT issues. It does not agree with a Court of Appeal decision that compound interest is owed on VAT refunds and will seek to appeal to the Supreme Court. It also lost an appeal at the Upper Tribunal regarding input VAT recovery for management fees related to the University of Cambridge's endowment fund. The Upper Tribunal affirmed the fees were overhead costs for the University's non-business activities.
ITU 10/2016
The document summarizes two key developments from the past week:
1) A Court of Justice ruling found that claims handling services provided to an insurer are not exempt from VAT as insurance transactions or related services. UK law will need to change and businesses providing these services should review their VAT position.
2) The UK budget announced new powers for HMRC to make online marketplaces jointly liable for VAT debts of overseas sellers on their platforms. This aims to reduce the estimated £365 million annual VAT loss from non-compliant foreign traders. Online portals will need to strengthen due diligence of sellers.
ITU 14/2016
This week the Upper Tribunal issued several judgments:
1. In Hammonds of Knutsford Ltd, the Tribunal dismissed an application for judicial review from a company that had a claim for excise duty drawback refused by HMRC due to failure to comply with an inspection condition, even though the breach was minor.
2. In Darren & Lynn Hills, the Tribunal found that an option to tax was validly exercised by property sellers, so VAT was due on the sale.
3. In SAE Education Ltd, the Tribunal again concluded that a commercial provider of university education was not an "eligible body" and its education supplies were standard rated for VAT, but the taxpayer is expected to appeal.
ITU 332015
The First-tier Tax Tribunal issued a controversial decision ruling that VAT is due on the full consideration received by Adecco UK Ltd and others for supplying temporary workers to clients, contradicting an earlier similar case. The Court of Appeal decided to refer the Brockenhurst College case on whether supplies of catering and performances are 'closely related' to education to the European Court of Justice for guidance. The FTT also ruled in the golf clubs unjust enrichment case that 90% of VAT claims made should be repaid, constituting a major victory for the golf clubs against HMRC's position.
Indirect Tax Update 18/2015
The Supreme Court ruled that a VAT avoidance scheme used by car retailer Pendragon was an abuse of EU law. Under the scheme, Pendragon claimed to sell used cars under the margin scheme even though it had deducted input VAT on the original purchases. The Supreme Court found this violated the purpose of the VAT Directive by giving Pendragon an illegitimate tax advantage. Additionally, two First-tier Tribunal cases were summarized: one ruled motor homes could not be treated as zero-rated caravans for VAT purposes due to their ability to move under own power. The other found the transfer of an opted property did not qualify as a transfer of a business due to the purchaser failing to properly opt to tax.
ITU 03/2017
HMRC responded to concerns raised in its Making Tax Digital consultation. It will allow continued spreadsheet use, quarterly reporting for some businesses, and free software. Charities will be exempt and partnerships above £10M have a deferred start until 2020. Commentators say HMRC is listening to stakeholders but businesses should still prepare for changes.
A European court case determined that a holding company cannot reclaim VAT without making charges for management services, as there was no economic activity.
Another DIY builder's VAT refund claim was rejected because planning permission did not allow for separate dwelling use, a legal requirement.
ITU 35/2015
This document summarizes three indirect tax cases:
1) The Court of Appeal ruled in favor of HMRC in a long-running case about whether VAT applied to off-street car parking provided by local authorities.
2) The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal by Leeds City Council seeking refunds of VAT paid between 1996 and 2006, finding the three-year limitation period was valid.
3) The First-Tier Tax Tribunal dismissed an appeal by National Car Parks seeking a refund of VAT paid on voluntary overpayments made at parking machines, determining the overpayments constituted consideration for parking.
ITU 15/2016
The document discusses proposed changes to VAT rules for advertising services supplied between EU and non-EU businesses. Currently, advertising services supplied to a business outside the EU do not incur EU VAT. HMRC proposes to introduce a "use and enjoyment" rule so that VAT is determined by where the advertising is targeted and consumed, not just the customer's location. However, key terms are undefined and many questions remain around implementation, such as how to determine and verify use and enjoyment location. HMRC will consult further over the summer and aims to introduce draft legislation by late 2016.
ITU 24/2016
The document summarizes three recent tax tribunal cases:
1) Associated British Ports (ABP) was not allowed to reclaim VAT paid to cover customs duties owed by a customer whose goods were removed from ABP's warehouse without payment. This establishes liability for warehouse operators.
2) General Healthcare Group's (GHG) appeal to be exempt from an earlier VAT ruling and reclaim VAT on prosthetics was denied, considering prosthetics part of the overall healthcare service.
3) Praesto Consulting was allowed to reclaim VAT on legal fees invoiced to its sole director for defending a case, as the legal services were determined to be for the company's benefit.
ITU 17/2016
The Court of Justice ruled against Bookit Ltd and the National Exhibition Centre (NEC) in two cases involving VAT exemption on card handling and payment processing fees. The Court determined that the taxpayers' actions in processing card payments and exchanging payment information did not constitute a financial service under the VAT Directive since they did not directly debit or credit accounts. As a result, the fees were subject to VAT rather than exempt. This ruling went against the taxpayers' arguments and means they and other businesses must pay VAT on similar card handling income.
Case Alert - University of Cambridge
The document summarizes a court case between the University of Cambridge and HMRC regarding whether the University can reclaim VAT incurred on fund management fees. The University operates an endowment fund managed by a third party, which charges fees. The University argues these fees are overheads that can be partially reclaimed under its partial exemption special method. HMRC argues the fees are consumed by investment activities and not reclaimable. Lower courts sided with the University, but the Court of Appeal referred the case to the European Court of Justice for guidance on interpreting relevant VAT directives and prior cases.
Indirect Tax Update 12/2015
1) HMRC has issued new guidance on employers recovering VAT on pension fund management costs. The guidance recognizes that due to the unique structure of UK pension schemes, employers can reclaim VAT if they meet certain conditions, such as directly paying the fund manager.
2) An advocate general opinion found that holding companies can fully recover VAT on costs related to acquiring subsidiaries and raising capital as long as the activities are directly linked to the company's overall economic activities.
3) A tribunal case confirmed that for VAT purposes, the value of a part exchange vehicle in a new car sale is the amount agreed between the dealer and customer, not any estimated market value.
ITU 02/2018
The document provides summaries of three court cases related to indirect tax:
1) The CJEU ruled that a Slovenian taxpayer must adjust its input tax deduction after a court ordered the taxpayer to pay only 44% of debts owed to creditors.
2) The CJEU ruled that the compulsory transfer of property from a Polish municipality to the state in exchange for compensation constituted a taxable supply for VAT purposes.
3) The UK Upper Tribunal largely upheld a previous ruling that a UK house builder could not reclaim input tax on "white goods" supplied as part of new home construction, with a minor exception for cooker hoods supplied between 1982-1984.
ITU 22/2016
This document summarizes three indirect tax cases:
1) ING Intermediate Holdings Ltd lost its £6 million input VAT claim after the Upper Tribunal ruled that ING provided banking services to its customers for consideration, making the services exempt from VAT recovery.
2) The Court of Appeal ruled against ELS Group in claiming retrospective use of the staff-hire concession, agreeing with HMRC that the concession requires an election at the time.
3) The First-Tier Tax Tribunal ruled that a fulfillment house could not reclaim over £500,000 in import VAT because the imported goods did not belong to the fulfillment house but to the overseas suppliers.
Indirect Tax Update 11/2015
The budget introduced measures to help certain charities reclaim VAT on non-business activities. Search and rescue charities, air ambulance charities, medical courier charities, and hospices will be eligible for VAT refunds starting in April 2015. To qualify, the charities must meet certain conditions regarding their activities and oversight. This recognizes the essential services these charities provide. The budget also proposes limiting UK businesses' ability to include supplies by overseas branches in their partial exemption calculations, bringing UK law in line with an EU court ruling. Recent tribunal cases addressed VAT refund denials, record-keeping requirements, and input tax eligibility.
Itu162014
The Court of Appeal dealt British Telecommunications PLC a severe blow by ruling against BT's claim for approximately £65 million in bad debt relief dating back almost 40 years. The Court unanimously confirmed that BT's claim must fail, agreeing with HMRC that BT had every opportunity to obtain expert advice on its EU law rights and could not legitimately expect UK law would not change. While the Court dismissed most of HMRC's grounds of appeal, it agreed imposing a bar on claims under the old relief scheme did not violate BT's EU rights. This case shows the Courts will not tolerate taxpayers delaying action on potential claims.
ITU 33/2016
The document summarizes two recent UK Upper Tribunal cases and an announcement from HMRC. The first case involved whether subsidiaries of a college could claim eligibility for VAT exemption like the college. The Tribunal confirmed they could not without express provisions preventing profit distribution in their constitutional documents. The second case involved three truck drivers transporting smuggled alcohol. The Tribunal held the drivers were deemed to be 'holding' the goods and liable for unpaid excise duty. HMRC also clarified its policy on recovering input VAT incurred before VAT registration within certain time limits.
ITU 09/2016
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed HMRC's appeal in its ongoing battle with the Open University over VAT charges on services provided by the BBC. The Court ruled the BBC, as a public body with educational aims, qualified for VAT exemption when providing services to the OU. Additionally, the Advocate General issued an opinion that VAT is due on goods retained when a business ceases, even if the input tax adjustment period has expired. Finally, the Tax Tribunal ruled Air France must pay the higher APD rate for its Premium Economy flights, as those were not the lowest class of travel available.
Similar to Case Alert - Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust (20)
More from Graham Brearley
ITU 10/2018
The document summarizes three recent court cases related to indirect tax:
1) The Court of Justice of the European Union ruled that a holding company letting property to its subsidiary constituted involvement in management, allowing the holding company to reclaim input tax on acquisition costs.
2) The UK Supreme Court ruled that a company that left a VAT group was not acting as an agent of the group when it later claimed a VAT refund, and thus the representative member of the VAT group was not entitled to the refund.
3) The UK Court of Session ruled that the supply of temporary modular classrooms was a taxable service, not a supply of an interest in land that would be VAT exempt, as the company had no interest in
ITU 07/2018
The document summarizes several indirect tax cases from the UK.
The first case discusses an Advocate General's opinion in a case referred to the Court of Justice by the Irish Supreme Court involving Ryanair's attempt to reclaim VAT fees from an unsuccessful takeover bid of Aer Lingus. The Advocate General believes Ryanair is entitled to reclaim the VAT.
The second case discusses a First-Tier Tax Tribunal case involving Marks & Spencer's "Dine In for £10 with free wine" promotion. The tribunal agreed with HMRC that VAT was due on the wine as customers paid for a package including the wine.
The third case discusses a First-Tier Tax Tribunal case involving a Guern
Case alert: Summit Electrical Installations Ltd Upper Tribunal Judgment
Whether services can be zero-rated when supplied to a main contractor. Whether planning restrictions on occupation prevents zero-rating
ITU 08/2018
The document summarizes two recent indirect tax cases in the UK:
1) HMRC v Summit Electrical Installations Ltd - The Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC's appeal and agreed with the First-tier Tax Tribunal's decision that the taxpayer could zero-rate its electrical installation services for a new student accommodation building, as the building qualified as a dwelling under VAT law.
2) Bratt Autoservices Ltd - The Court of Appeal dismissed the taxpayer's appeal and agreed with the Upper Tribunal that the taxpayer's 2009 VAT repayment claim was not valid because it did not allocate amounts to the taxpayer's prescribed accounting periods as required by VAT law.
Vat Alert: Reverse Charge on Construction Services
The document discusses HMRC's proposal to introduce a 'reverse charge mechanism' for VAT on construction services to combat VAT fraud in the industry. Under the new rules, the customer would be responsible for accounting for VAT on supplies received rather than the supplier. This would prevent suppliers from charging VAT but not paying it over to HMRC. The draft legislation provides a wide definition of construction services that would be subject to the reverse charge, including building works, repairs, and various site works. While measures to tackle fraud are necessary, commentators note that the broad scope means nearly all subcontracted construction services would be affected, with wider impacts than originally planned.
ITU 09/2018
The document summarizes three recent indirect tax cases:
1) Wetheralds Ltd - The Upper Tribunal ruled that a thermally efficient roofing system was a supply of a new roof rather than insulation materials, and was thus subject to the standard VAT rate of 20% rather than the reduced 5% rate.
2) Abbotsley Ltd - The Upper Tribunal confirmed that affiliation fees paid by proprietary golf clubs to golf associations were exempt from VAT as being essential to sport.
3) Hutchison 3G UK Ltd - The First-tier Tax Tribunal dismissed H3G's argument that the tax point for mobile phone contracts should be when services are used rather than when monthly payments are received.
ITU 06/2018
The document provides summaries of three recent court rulings related to indirect tax:
1) The Advocate General issued an opinion in Volkswagen Financial Services v HMRC, finding that vehicle financing arrangements constitute a single taxable supply of a vehicle, entitling the company to full VAT recovery on overheads. This contradicts the UK's view of separate taxable and exempt supplies.
2) The Court of Appeal ruled against Wakefield College in its claim that education provided to students paying partial fees due to financial hardship was not an "economic activity" subject to VAT, as the partial fees constitute remuneration rather than consideration.
3) The Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC's argument that payments by Marriott
Vat Alert - Cost Sharing Groups
HMRC has announced changes to the UK's VAT rules relating to cost sharing groups (CSGs) following recent judgments from the Court of Justice of the European Union. The changes mean the VAT exemption for CSGs will now only apply to entities providing certain public interest services listed in the VAT Directive, such as postal, education, and health services. Banking and insurance entities are no longer eligible. HMRC will also restrict CSG membership to UK entities and require recharges to members be made only at cost. Entities correctly applying previous guidance have until the end of May 2018 to comply with the new rules.
ITU 05/2018
HMRC revises its policy in relation to cost sharing groups following judgments from the Court of Justice. Specifically, HMRC will no longer allow the cost sharing exemption for financial and insurance businesses as the Court of Justice ruled the exemption is not available to these sectors. HMRC will provide a two month transition period for affected businesses to regularize their VAT positions. Additionally, the Court of Appeal case involves determining whether VAT on fund management services provided to the University of Cambridge's endowment fund can be attributed to the overall activities of the University.
Case Alert - VWFS - Advocate General's opinion
This document summarizes an Advocate General's opinion in a case between HMRC and Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Ltd regarding VAT treatment of hire purchase agreements. The Advocate General opined that input VAT incurred by VWFS on overheads cannot be recovered as it relates to the exempt supply of credit. However, the UK's treatment of hire purchase transactions as two separate supplies is incorrect under EU law - they should be treated as a single taxable supply of a car with an incidental credit element. If the court agrees, it would entitle VWFS to recover all input VAT but require accounting for output tax on interest charged. The opinion creates uncertainty for finance industry VAT treatment going forward.
Case Alert - Wakefield College - Court of Appeal
The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed Wakefield College's appeal of a decision that denied VAT zero-rating for the construction of a new college building. While most of the College's students either paid no or subsidized fees, the Court found this still constituted consideration for education and made it an economic activity, precluding VAT zero-rating. The Court distinguished consideration under VAT Directive Article 2 from remuneration under Article 9, finding the College's activities were remunerated and economic in nature. This clarified that satisfying Article 2's consideration test does not automatically deem an activity non-economic under Article 9. The College's attempt to analogize to a prior legal aid case was rejected.
Case alert - Ryanair - Advocate General's opinion
This summary provides the key details from the document in 3 sentences:
The document discusses an Advocate General's opinion in a case referred to the Court of Justice of the European Union concerning whether the Irish airline Ryanair was entitled to reclaim VAT incurred on professional fees relating to its failed 2006 bid to acquire rival airline Aer Lingus. The Advocate General considers that Ryanair is entitled to reclaim the input VAT, both because there was an intention to provide management services and because the cost of acquiring Aer Lingus shares was to directly and permanently extend Ryanair's taxable air passenger transport services business. This is the case even though the takeover bid was ultimately blocked and the management services were not provided.
ITU 06/2018
The document provides summaries of three recent court rulings related to indirect tax:
1) The Advocate General issued an opinion in Volkswagen Financial Services v HMRC, finding that vehicle financing arrangements constitute a single taxable supply of a vehicle, allowing the company to recover input tax on overheads.
2) The Court of Appeal ruled against Wakefield College in its claim that education provided to students paying partial fees was not an economic activity for VAT purposes, as the partial fees constitute consideration.
3) The Upper Tribunal dismissed HMRC's argument that payments by Marriott Rewards to redeeming hotels were third party consideration, but also ruled that neither Marriott nor Whitbread established the UK or US
Case Alert - Marks & Spencer
This document discusses a case regarding a promotional offer by Marks & Spencer (M&S) where customers could purchase three food items for £10 and receive a free bottle of wine. HMRC considered that the deal was actually for four items for £10 and that VAT should be paid on the portion of the £10 attributable to the wine. The First-tier Tax Tribunal agreed with HMRC's view, finding that the economic reality was a package deal rather than items plus a free gift. It determined that the £10 payment should be apportioned with VAT paid on the wine portion. The Tribunal emphasized examining the commercial substance of promotions for accurate VAT determination.
Case Alert - Marriott Rewards / Whitbread - Upper Tribunal
The Upper Tribunal issued a judgment regarding the VAT treatment of payments made through Marriott's customer loyalty rewards scheme. The Tribunal determined that payments from Marriott Rewards LLC to participating hotels were consideration for redemption services provided to MRL, rather than third-party consideration for accommodation supplied to customers. It also found that these redemption services constituted a supply of services related to land in the UK, rather than advertising services, meaning UK VAT was due. Both MRL and Whitbread's appeals were dismissed.
ITU 04/2018
The document provides updates on recent indirect tax cases from the UK courts, CJEU, and Brexit developments.
The CJEU issued an opinion in DPAS Ltd, finding that DPAS's service of collecting payments from patients and transferring them to dentists was not exempt from VAT as a payment transaction, but rather a taxable debt collection service, even though the contracts were amended to provide the service to patients rather than dentists.
The CJEU also ruled in a case from Slovakia that when a supplier issues supplementary VAT invoices to correct an underpayment of VAT, the time limit for claiming VAT refunds should run from the date of the supplementary invoices, not the original supplies.
Finally,
Case Alert DPAS Ltd - Advocate General's opinion
Whether collection of direct debits constitutes a transaction concerning payments or transfers and exempt from VAT - AG considers not
Brexit Alert
This document summarizes an agreement reached between the UK and EU to establish a transitional period after Brexit. Key points include:
- The UK will leave the EU in March 2019 but remain in the single market and customs union until December 2020.
- Goods moving between the UK and EU during this period will be treated as intra-EU trade in regards to customs and VAT.
- The agreement provides businesses more certainty and time to prepare for changes taking effect after the transitional period ends. However, the deal still requires approval from all EU member states.
Case Alert: Kreuzmayr CJEU Judgment
CJEU issues judgment on place of supply issue relating to two supplies but a single transportation - Also deals with recovery of incorrectly charged input VAT
ITU 03/2018
The document summarizes three indirect tax cases:
1) A CJEU case regarding whether payments for credits on an online auction site constitute a preliminary transaction or payment for goods. The Advocate General found credits enabled participation and were a taxable supply of services.
2) The European Commission issued proceedings against Cyprus, Greece, Malta, and the UK for alleged non-compliance with EU VAT law regarding yacht VAT schemes and financial derivatives.
3) A UK tax tribunal case examined whether a property transfer qualified for VAT exemption as a transfer of a going concern. The tribunal found conditions were met for one property but not three others.
More from Graham Brearley (20)
Case alert: Summit Electrical Installations Ltd Upper Tribunal Judgment
Case alert: Summit Electrical Installations Ltd Upper Tribunal Judgment
Vat Alert: Reverse Charge on Construction Services
Vat Alert: Reverse Charge on Construction Services
Case Alert - Marriott Rewards / Whitbread - Upper Tribunal
Case Alert - Marriott Rewards / Whitbread - Upper Tribunal
Recently uploaded
1：1制作加拿大麦吉尔大学毕业证硕士学历证书原版一模一样
原版一模一样【微信：741003700 】【加拿大麦吉尔大学毕业证硕士学历证书】【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原海外各大学 Bachelor Diploma degree, Master Degree Diploma
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
Bridging the gap: Online job postings, survey data and the assessment of job ...
Bridging the gap: Online job postings, survey data and the assessment of job ...Labour Market Information Council | Conseil de l’information sur le marché du travail
OJP data from firms like Vicinity Jobs have emerged as a complement to traditional sources of labour demand data, such as the Job Vacancy and Wages Survey (JVWS). Ibrahim Abuallail, PhD Candidate, University of Ottawa, presented research relating to bias in OJPs and a proposed approach to effectively adjust OJP data to complement existing official data (such as from the JVWS) and improve the measurement of labour demand.一比一原版(RMIT毕业证)皇家墨尔本理工大学毕业证如何办理
RMIT硕士学位证成绩单【微信95270640】《皇家墨尔本理工大学毕业证书》《QQ微信95270640》学位证书电子版：在线制作皇家墨尔本理工大学毕业证成绩单GPA修改（制作RMIT毕业证成绩单RMIT文凭证书样本）、皇家墨尔本理工大学毕业证书与成绩单样本图片、《RMIT学历证书学位证书》、皇家墨尔本理工大学毕业证案例毕业证书制作軟體、在线制作加拿大硕士学历证书真实可查.
【本科硕士】皇家墨尔本理工大学皇家墨尔本理工大学本科学位证成绩单（GPA修改）；学历认证（教育部认证）；大学Offer录取通知书留信认证使馆认证；雅思语言证书等高仿类证书。
办理流程：
1客户提供办理皇家墨尔本理工大学皇家墨尔本理工大学本科学位证成绩单信息：姓名生日专业学位毕业时间等（如信息不确定可以咨询顾问：我们有专业老师帮你查询）；
2开始安排制作毕业证成绩单电子图；
3毕业证成绩单电子版做好以后发送给您确认；
4毕业证成绩单电子版您确认信息无误之后安排制作成品；
5成品做好拍照或者视频给您确认；
6快递给客户（国内顺丰国外DHLUPS等快读邮寄）
真实网上可查的证明材料
1教育部学历学位认证留服官网真实存档可查永久存档。
2留学回国人员证明（使馆认证）使馆网站真实存档可查。
我们对海外大学及学院的毕业证成绩单所使用的材料尺寸大小防伪结构（包括：皇家墨尔本理工大学皇家墨尔本理工大学本科学位证成绩单隐形水印阴影底纹钢印LOGO烫金烫银LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕激光镭射紫外荧光温感复印防伪）都有原版本文凭对照。质量得到了广大海外客户群体的认可同时和海外学校留学中介做到与时俱进及时掌握各大院校的（毕业证成绩单资格证结业证录取通知书在读证明等相关材料）的版本更新信息能够在第一时间掌握最新的海外学历文凭的样版尺寸大小纸张材质防伪技术等等并在第一时间收集到原版实物以求达到客户的需求。
本公司还可以按照客户原版印刷制作且能够达到客户理想的要求。有需要办理证件的客户请联系我们在线客服中心微信：95270640 或咨询在线父亲的家很狭小除了一张单人床和一张小方桌几乎没有多余的空间山娃一下子就联想起学校的男小便处山娃很想笑却怎么也笑不出来山娃很迷惑父亲的家除了一扇小铁门连窗户也没有墓穴一般阴森森有些骇人父亲的城也便成了山娃的城父亲的家也便成了山娃的家父亲让山娃呆在屋里做作业看电视最多只能在门口透透气不能跟陌生人搭腔更不能乱跑一怕迷路二怕拐子拐人山娃很惊惧去年村里的田鸡就因为跟父亲进城一不小心被人拐跑了至今不见踪影害不
Detailed power point presentation on compound interest and how it is calculated
Detailed information about compund interest
falcon-invoice-discounting-a-premier-investment-platform-for-superior-returns...
falcon-invoice-discounting-a-premier-investment-platform-for-superior-returns...Falcon Invoice Discounting
Falcon stands out as a top-tier P2P Invoice Discounting platform in India, bridging esteemed blue-chip companies and eager investors. Our goal is to transform the investment landscape in India by establishing a comprehensive destination for borrowers and investors with diverse profiles and needs, all while minimizing risk. What sets Falcon apart is the elimination of intermediaries such as commercial banks and depository institutions, allowing investors to enjoy higher yields.1.2 Business Ideas Business Ideas Busine
Business Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas PowerpointBusiness Ideas Powerpoint
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024)
"Does Foreign Direct Investment Negatively Affect Preservation of Culture in the Global South? Case Studies in Thailand and Cambodia."
Do elements of globalization, such as Foreign Direct Investment (FDI), negatively affect the ability of countries in the Global South to preserve their culture? This research aims to answer this question by employing a cross-sectional comparative case study analysis utilizing methods of difference. Thailand and Cambodia are compared as they are in the same region and have a similar culture. The metric of difference between Thailand and Cambodia is their ability to preserve their culture. This ability is operationalized by their respective attitudes towards FDI; Thailand imposes stringent regulations and limitations on FDI while Cambodia does not hesitate to accept most FDI and imposes fewer limitations. The evidence from this study suggests that FDI from globally influential countries with high gross domestic products (GDPs) (e.g. China, U.S.) challenges the ability of countries with lower GDPs (e.g. Cambodia) to protect their culture. Furthermore, the ability, or lack thereof, of the receiving countries to protect their culture is amplified by the existence and implementation of restrictive FDI policies imposed by their governments.
My study abroad in Bali, Indonesia, inspired this research topic as I noticed how globalization is changing the culture of its people. I learned their language and way of life which helped me understand the beauty and importance of cultural preservation. I believe we could all benefit from learning new perspectives as they could help us ideate solutions to contemporary issues and empathize with others.
Unlock-the-Power-of-UAN-Your-Key-to-Secure-Retirement.pptx
The Universal Account Number (UAN) by EPFO centralizes multiple PF accounts, simplifying management for Indian employees. It streamlines PF transfers, withdrawals, and KYC updates, providing transparency and reducing employer dependency. Despite challenges like digital literacy and internet access, UAN is vital for financial empowerment and efficient provident fund management in today's digital age.
在线办理(GU毕业证书)美国贡萨加大学毕业证学历证书一模一样
学校原件一模一样【微信：741003700 】《(GU毕业证书)美国贡萨加大学毕业证学历证书》【微信：741003700 】学位证，留信认证（真实可查，永久存档）原件一模一样纸张工艺/offer、雅思、外壳等材料/诚信可靠,可直接看成品样本，帮您解决无法毕业带来的各种难题！外壳，原版制作，诚信可靠，可直接看成品样本。行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备。十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，包您满意。
本公司拥有海外各大学样板无数，能完美还原。
1:1完美还原海外各大学毕业材料上的工艺：水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠。文字图案浮雕、激光镭射、紫外荧光、温感、复印防伪等防伪工艺。材料咨询办理、认证咨询办理请加学历顾问Q/微741003700
【主营项目】
一.毕业证【q微741003700】成绩单、使馆认证、教育部认证、雅思托福成绩单、学生卡等！
二.真实使馆公证(即留学回国人员证明,不成功不收费)
三.真实教育部学历学位认证（教育部存档！教育部留服网站永久可查）
四.办理各国各大学文凭(一对一专业服务,可全程监控跟踪进度)
如果您处于以下几种情况：
◇在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业……拿不到官方毕业证【q/微741003700】
◇面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到；
◇不清楚认证流程以及材料该如何准备；
◇回国时间很长，忘记办理；
◇回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
◇企事业单位必须要求办理的
◇需要报考公务员、购买免税车、落转户口
◇申请留学生创业基金
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
Tdasx: In-Depth Analysis of Cryptocurrency Giveaway Scams and Security Strate...
Tdasx: In-Depth Analysis of Cryptocurrency Giveaway Scams and Security Strategies
Discover the Future of Dogecoin with Our Comprehensive Guidance
Learn in-depth about Dogecoin's trajectory and stay informed with 36crypto's essential and up-to-date information about the crypto space.
Our presentation delves into Dogecoin's potential future, exploring whether it's destined to skyrocket to the moon or face a downward spiral. In addition, it highlights invaluable insights. Don't miss out on this opportunity to enhance your crypto understanding!
https://36crypto.com/the-future-of-dogecoin-how-high-can-this-cryptocurrency-reach/
How Non-Banking Financial Companies Empower Startups With Venture Debt Financing
How Non-Banking Financial Companies Empower Startups With Venture Debt Financing
Tdasx: In-Depth Analysis of Cryptocurrency Giveaway Scams and Security Strate...
Tdasx: In-Depth Analysis of Cryptocurrency Giveaway Scams and Security Strategies
一比一原版美国新罕布什尔大学(unh)毕业证学历认证真实可查
永久可查学历认证【微信：A575476】【美国新罕布什尔大学(unh)毕业证成绩单Offer】【微信：A575476】（留信学历认证永久存档查询）采用学校原版纸张、特殊工艺完全按照原版一比一制作（包括：隐形水印，阴影底纹，钢印LOGO烫金烫银，LOGO烫金烫银复合重叠，文字图案浮雕，激光镭射，紫外荧光，温感，复印防伪）行业标杆！精益求精，诚心合作，真诚制作！多年品质 ,按需精细制作，24小时接单,全套进口原装设备，十五年致力于帮助留学生解决难题，业务范围有加拿大、英国、澳洲、韩国、美国、新加坡，新西兰等学历材料，包您满意。
【业务选择办理准则】
一、工作未确定，回国需先给父母、亲戚朋友看下文凭的情况，办理一份就读学校的毕业证【微信：A575476】文凭即可
二、回国进私企、外企、自己做生意的情况，这些单位是不查询毕业证真伪的，而且国内没有渠道去查询国外文凭的真假，也不需要提供真实教育部认证。鉴于此，办理一份毕业证【微信：A575476】即可
三、进国企，银行，事业单位，考公务员等等，这些单位是必需要提供真实教育部认证的，办理教育部认证所需资料众多且烦琐，所有材料您都必须提供原件，我们凭借丰富的经验，快捷的绿色通道帮您快速整合材料，让您少走弯路。
留信网认证的作用:
1:该专业认证可证明留学生真实身份
2:同时对留学生所学专业登记给予评定
3:国家专业人才认证中心颁发入库证书
4:这个认证书并且可以归档倒地方
5:凡事获得留信网入网的信息将会逐步更新到个人身份内，将在公安局网内查询个人身份证信息后，同步读取人才网入库信息
6:个人职称评审加20分
7:个人信誉贷款加10分
8:在国家人才网主办的国家网络招聘大会中纳入资料，供国家高端企业选择人才
→ 【关于价格问题（保证一手价格）
我们所定的价格是非常合理的，而且我们现在做得单子大多数都是代理和回头客户介绍的所以一般现在有新的单子 我给客户的都是第一手的代理价格，因为我想坦诚对待大家 不想跟大家在价格方面浪费时间
对于老客户或者被老客户介绍过来的朋友，我们都会适当给一些优惠。
选择实体注册公司办理，更放心，更安全！我们的承诺：可来公司面谈，可签订合同，会陪同客户一起到教育部认证窗口递交认证材料，客户在教育部官方认证查询网站查询到认证通过结果后付款，不成功不收费！
Fabular Frames and the Four Ratio Problem
Digital, interactive art showing the struggle of a society in providing for its present population while also saving planetary resources for future generations. Spread across several frames, the art is actually the rendering of real and speculative data. The stereographic projections change shape in response to prompts and provocations. Visitors interact with the model through speculative statements about how to increase savings across communities, regions, ecosystems and environments. Their fabulations combined with random noise, i.e. factors beyond control, have a dramatic effect on the societal transition. Things get better. Things get worse. The aim is to give visitors a new grasp and feel of the ongoing struggles in democracies around the world.
Stunning art in the small multiples format brings out the spatiotemporal nature of societal transitions, against backdrop issues such as energy, housing, waste, farmland and forest. In each frame we see hopeful and frightful interplays between spending and saving. Problems emerge when one of the two parts of the existential anaglyph rapidly shrinks like Arctic ice, as factors cross thresholds. Ecological wealth and intergenerational equity areFour at stake. Not enough spending could mean economic stress, social unrest and political conflict. Not enough saving and there will be climate breakdown and ‘bankruptcy’. So where does speculative design start and the gambling and betting end? Behind each fabular frame is a four ratio problem. Each ratio reflects the level of sacrifice and self-restraint a society is willing to accept, against promises of prosperity and freedom. Some values seem to stabilise a frame while others cause collapse. Get the ratios right and we can have it all. Get them wrong and things get more desperate.
1. Elemental Economics - Introduction to mining.pdf
After this first you should: Understand the nature of mining; have an awareness of the industry’s boundaries, corporate structure and size; appreciation the complex motivations and objectives of the industries’ various participants; know how mineral reserves are defined and estimated, and how they evolve over time.
2. Elemental Economics - Mineral demand.pdf
After this second you should be able to: Explain the main determinants of demand for any mineral product, and their relative importance; recognise and explain how demand for any product is likely to change with economic activity; recognise and explain the roles of technology and relative prices in influencing demand; be able to explain the differences between the rates of growth of demand for different products.
Recently uploaded (20)
Applying the Global Internal Audit Standards_AIS.pdf
Applying the Global Internal Audit Standards_AIS.pdf
Bridging the gap: Online job postings, survey data and the assessment of job ...
Bridging the gap: Online job postings, survey data and the assessment of job ...
Detailed power point presentation on compound interest and how it is calculated
Detailed power point presentation on compound interest and how it is calculated
falcon-invoice-discounting-a-premier-investment-platform-for-superior-returns...
falcon-invoice-discounting-a-premier-investment-platform-for-superior-returns...
Tumelo-deep-dive-into-pass-through-voting-Feb23 (1).pdf
Tumelo-deep-dive-into-pass-through-voting-Feb23 (1).pdf
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024)
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024)
Unlock-the-Power-of-UAN-Your-Key-to-Secure-Retirement.pptx
Unlock-the-Power-of-UAN-Your-Key-to-Secure-Retirement.pptx
Tdasx: In-Depth Analysis of Cryptocurrency Giveaway Scams and Security Strate...
Tdasx: In-Depth Analysis of Cryptocurrency Giveaway Scams and Security Strate...
Discover the Future of Dogecoin with Our Comprehensive Guidance
Discover the Future of Dogecoin with Our Comprehensive Guidance
How Non-Banking Financial Companies Empower Startups With Venture Debt Financing
How Non-Banking Financial Companies Empower Startups With Venture Debt Financing
Tdasx: In-Depth Analysis of Cryptocurrency Giveaway Scams and Security Strate...
Tdasx: In-Depth Analysis of Cryptocurrency Giveaway Scams and Security Strate...
1. Elemental Economics - Introduction to mining.pdf
1. Elemental Economics - Introduction to mining.pdf
Case Alert - Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust
- 1. Court of Appeal Birmingham Hippodrome Theatre Trust Ltd [2014] EWCA Civ 684 The Court of Appeal has delivered its judgment in the above case. In a unanimous (3-0) judgment, the Court has dismissed the taxpayer's appeal which related to whether HMRC had the right to offset previously claimed input tax against a claim for overpaid output tax. The facts of the case are simple. Birmingham Hippodrome (the Trust) operates a theatre and, historically, it had accounted for output tax on its box office receipts. It subsequently transpired that, under the VAT Directive, this income should have been exempt from VAT. However, between 2000 and 2001 the theatre was substantially refurbished and, on the basis that, at the time of the works, the input VAT was (albeit incorrectly) attributable to its taxable activities, the input VAT incurred on the works was claimed by the Trust and repaid by HMRC. Following the eventual resolution of the three-year cap, the Trust submitted a claim for repayment of the overpaid output VAT but HMRC then sought to offset the input VAT claimed in relation to the refurbishment works. The Trust considered that HMRC was not entitled to offset contending that it was 'out-of-time'. The Upper Tribunal concluded that HMRC did have the power to offset and the Trust therefore appealed to the Court of Appeal. In its judgment, the Court of Appeal has confirmed that, under section 81(3A) of the VAT Act, HMRC is entitled to offset the input tax claimed in error. The Court confirmed that this outcome has the effect of putting the Trust in the position it would have been in had the Directive been implemented correctly in the UK during the relevant period covered by the claim. In other words, while no output VAT should have been paid at the time, (because the supplies made by the Trust were exempt from VAT), equally, no input tax should have been claimed either. To do otherwise would lead to the unjust enrichment of the Trust. Comment - According to the Court of Appeal, the offsetting allowed for by section 81(3A) does not infringe the principles of effectiveness, equal treatment or legal certainty and it did not consider that the issues required a reference to the Court of Justice. Given the unanimous judgment, it would seem that the Trust's only chance of reversing this decision is to persuade the Supreme Court on appeal that the issues ought to be referred. The court has also confirmed that HMRC's power to invoke an offset under section 81(3A) is only available in cases where a taxpayer submits a claim and does not mean that the normal time limits applicable to HMRC can be ignored. For further information in relation to any of the issues highlighted in this Case Alert please contact: The Regions Stuart Brodie stuart.brodie@uk.gt.com London/South East Karen Robb karen.robb@uk.gt.com The Midlands Mike Sheppard mike.sheppard@uk.gt.com © 2014 Grant Thornton UK LLP All rights reserved ‘Grant Thornton’ means Grant Thornton UK LLP, a limited liability partnership Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL and its member firms are not agents of, and do not obligate, one another and are not liable for one another's acts or omissions. This publication has been prepared only as a guide. No responsibility can be accepted by us for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from acting as a result of any material in this publication. www.grant-thornton.co.uk Case Alert