Case Alert Brockenhurst College
•
0 likes•309 views
Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL), which provides assurance, tax, and advisory services through independent member firms around the world. While GTIL establishes quality standards and is responsible for strategy, each member firm operates as a separate legal entity and is not liable for other member firms' actions or omissions. This publication is intended as guidance only and Grant Thornton UK LLP accepts no liability for any actions taken based on its contents.
Report
Share
Report
Share
Download to read offline
Recommended
Case Alert - Brockenhurst College - Advocate General's Opinion
1) Brockenhurst College provides vocational training to students in fields like restaurant services and performing arts. It sought to apply a VAT exemption to supplies of these services to third parties, arguing they were closely related to the training provided to students.
2) Advocate General Kokott issued an opinion that Brockenhurst College's argument is flawed. While practical experience is valuable to students, services provided to third parties for payment are separate supplies, not closely related to the education received by students.
3) The full Court of Justice is expected to agree with the Advocate General and rule against applying the VAT exemption to supplies made to third parties, dealing a blow to similar claims from other colleges.
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 02/2016
HMRC has announced a consultation on expanding eligibility for UK VAT groups following recent EU court rulings. Currently, only corporate bodies under common control can form a UK VAT group. The consultation will consider allowing partnerships and other entities to join VAT groups in order to comply with EU law. HMRC will consult with trade groups before developing policy options for broader consultation later in the year. The changes are aimed at aligning UK VAT law with the EU principle of fiscal neutrality established in recent court cases.
Case Alert Brockenhurst College - CJEU Judgment
1) Grant Thornton is an accounting firm that provides assurance, tax, and advisory services through its member firms around the world.
2) While the member firms work together under the Grant Thornton brand, each member is a separate legal entity and is not liable for the acts of other members.
3) This publication is intended as guidance only and Grant Thornton accepts no liability for any loss resulting from relying on the information herein.
Case Alert - Metropolitan International Schools - First-tier Tax Tribunal
This document summarizes a tax case involving Metropolitan International Schools (MIS) that was decided by the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The FTT ruled that MIS made a single supply of printed course materials rather than a supply of education. As a result, MIS's supplies were subject to VAT at the zero-rate rather than the standard rate argued by HMRC. The decision was an important win for MIS but may still be appealed by HMRC if they believe the FTT applied the wrong legal tests or factual findings.
Case Alert - The Open University
This document summarizes a court case between HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) and The Open University regarding VAT (value added tax) charged by the BBC on educational programming and broadcasting services provided to The Open University over many years. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed HMRC's appeal and found that the BBC, while not a public body, had similar educational objectives and its services to The Open University were closely related to education and should have been VAT exempt. The ruling determined that UK law needs to be amended to properly implement the VAT Directive and recognize bodies with similar educational aims to public bodies.
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.
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.
Recommended
Case Alert - Brockenhurst College - Advocate General's Opinion
1) Brockenhurst College provides vocational training to students in fields like restaurant services and performing arts. It sought to apply a VAT exemption to supplies of these services to third parties, arguing they were closely related to the training provided to students.
2) Advocate General Kokott issued an opinion that Brockenhurst College's argument is flawed. While practical experience is valuable to students, services provided to third parties for payment are separate supplies, not closely related to the education received by students.
3) The full Court of Justice is expected to agree with the Advocate General and rule against applying the VAT exemption to supplies made to third parties, dealing a blow to similar claims from other colleges.
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 02/2016
HMRC has announced a consultation on expanding eligibility for UK VAT groups following recent EU court rulings. Currently, only corporate bodies under common control can form a UK VAT group. The consultation will consider allowing partnerships and other entities to join VAT groups in order to comply with EU law. HMRC will consult with trade groups before developing policy options for broader consultation later in the year. The changes are aimed at aligning UK VAT law with the EU principle of fiscal neutrality established in recent court cases.
Case Alert Brockenhurst College - CJEU Judgment
1) Grant Thornton is an accounting firm that provides assurance, tax, and advisory services through its member firms around the world.
2) While the member firms work together under the Grant Thornton brand, each member is a separate legal entity and is not liable for the acts of other members.
3) This publication is intended as guidance only and Grant Thornton accepts no liability for any loss resulting from relying on the information herein.
Case Alert - Metropolitan International Schools - First-tier Tax Tribunal
This document summarizes a tax case involving Metropolitan International Schools (MIS) that was decided by the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT). The FTT ruled that MIS made a single supply of printed course materials rather than a supply of education. As a result, MIS's supplies were subject to VAT at the zero-rate rather than the standard rate argued by HMRC. The decision was an important win for MIS but may still be appealed by HMRC if they believe the FTT applied the wrong legal tests or factual findings.
Case Alert - The Open University
This document summarizes a court case between HMRC (Her Majesty's Revenue and Customs) and The Open University regarding VAT (value added tax) charged by the BBC on educational programming and broadcasting services provided to The Open University over many years. The Court of Appeal unanimously dismissed HMRC's appeal and found that the BBC, while not a public body, had similar educational objectives and its services to The Open University were closely related to education and should have been VAT exempt. The ruling determined that UK law needs to be amended to properly implement the VAT Directive and recognize bodies with similar educational aims to public bodies.
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.
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.
Case Alert Financial & Business Training Ltd - Court of Appeal
Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). GTIL and its member firms are separate legal entities that provide assurance, tax, and advisory services. Grant Thornton UK LLP is regulated in the UK, but individual member firms are not agents of each other and are not liable for each other's actions. This publication is intended as guidance only and Grant Thornton accepts no responsibility for any loss resulting from reliance on it.
Case Alert - SAE Education Ltd - Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal judgment on whether taxpayer is a College of a University and thus, an eligible body for VAT purposes
ITU / 092017
The document summarizes three court rulings:
1. The Court of Justice overturned the Advocate General's opinion in the Brockenhurst College VAT case, ruling that supplies made by the college to third parties could be considered closely related to the principal education supply.
2. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Investment Trust Companies in their restitution claim against HMRC for VAT wrongly paid, finding they had no direct relationship with HMRC.
3. The Advocate General issued an opinion in an input VAT recovery case, arguing that a Bulgarian developer could not reclaim VAT on works to upgrade a water pumping station as there was no link to its taxable business activities.
VAT Update - Brockenhurst College
HMRC lose this high profile case at the latest stage. Of interest to those in the education sector and charities.
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.
Case Alert Wakefield College - Upper Tribunal
This document provides information about Grant Thornton UK LLP and its relationship with Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). It states that Grant Thornton UK LLP is a separate legal entity from GTIL and other member firms. Services are delivered independently by each member firm. GTIL does not provide services to clients directly. The document also notes that it is intended only as a general guide and Grant Thornton cannot be liable for any losses resulting from its use.
ITU 03/2016
The Upper Tribunal issued three decisions this week:
1. It allowed HMRC's appeal in the Wakefield College case, overturning the earlier decision that a new building qualified for VAT zero-rating. The Tribunal found that where students paid full fees, the education provided was a business activity.
2. It allowed Find My Past Ltd's appeal, finding that credits purchased were not pre-payments for future access but "face-value vouchers" so VAT was only due when redeemed, allowing refunds for unused credits.
3. The Court of Justice ruled that Belgium could view a for-profit organization providing assisted housing for the elderly as "charitable" and exempt its welfare services from VAT based on
ITU 04/2017
This document summarizes three VAT tribunal cases:
1) A university challenged HMRC's view that it owed VAT on fees paid to overseas agents who help recruit foreign students. The tribunal mostly agreed with HMRC, except that fees before 2010 were not subject to VAT.
2) Marriott and Whitbread's appeals about a loyalty points scheme were dismissed, with the tribunal finding the nature of supplies was different than claimed.
3) A freight agent was denied VAT repayment on imports when the customer went insolvent and conditions of an extra-statutory concession were not met.
UK Case Alert: HMRC v DPAS Ltd (Upper Tribunal)
Transactions relating to payments or transfers of money are specifically exempted from VAT by the Principal VAT Directive. The questions in this case were whether DPAS supplied services to patients and, if so, whether they were exempt from VAT under this particular heading.
The CJEU issued a judgment in 2010 in a similar case (Axa Denplan) which ruled that the services were not exempt transactions but were, instead, debt collection services which were subject to VAT.
DPAS' response to Axa Denplan was to alter its business model to ensure that its services were supplied to the patients and could not, therefore be regarded as debt collection.
VAT briefing paper - private providers of education
The document discusses recent cases that have challenged the UK's interpretation of the EU VAT exemption for education supplies. The UK law takes no account of the aims of education providers and fails to correctly implement the EU Directive. Two recent cases - Finance & Business Training Ltd and The Open University - have highlighted flaws in UK law and created opportunities for commercial education providers to claim exemption. While uncertainties remain as cases progress through the courts, commercial providers should monitor developments and protect their position regarding historic VAT payments.
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.
ITU 15/2017
The Supreme Court heard the case of Littlewoods & Ors v HMRC, which centered around whether taxpayers are entitled to interest above the statutory interest rate for VAT overpayments under EU law. Littlewoods argued it was due over £1 billion in additional interest, while HMRC believes the statutory rate satisfies adequate indemnity. The court signaled it would either agree with HMRC or refer the issue to the European Court of Justice for clarification. Additionally, a tribunal ruled supplies by a university student union were taxable, and an advocate general found German law treating health insurers differently for VAT violated the principle of fiscal neutrality.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
ITU 37/2016 final
The First-tier Tax Tribunal issued two important decisions. The first concerned whether services provided by two companies took place in the UK or outside based on place of supply rules. The Tribunal concluded the companies had a fixed establishment in the UK, so supplies were in the UK and subject to UK VAT. The second concerned whether the customer in an insurance agency case was the insurer or insured person. Based on the contract, the Tribunal found the customer was the insurer. Finally, HMRC announced plans to extend the disclosure regime for tax avoidance schemes to VAT and indirect taxes in September 2017.
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
More Related Content
Similar to Case Alert Brockenhurst College
Case Alert Financial & Business Training Ltd - Court of Appeal
Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). GTIL and its member firms are separate legal entities that provide assurance, tax, and advisory services. Grant Thornton UK LLP is regulated in the UK, but individual member firms are not agents of each other and are not liable for each other's actions. This publication is intended as guidance only and Grant Thornton accepts no responsibility for any loss resulting from reliance on it.
Case Alert - SAE Education Ltd - Court of Appeal
Court of Appeal judgment on whether taxpayer is a College of a University and thus, an eligible body for VAT purposes
ITU / 092017
The document summarizes three court rulings:
1. The Court of Justice overturned the Advocate General's opinion in the Brockenhurst College VAT case, ruling that supplies made by the college to third parties could be considered closely related to the principal education supply.
2. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled against Investment Trust Companies in their restitution claim against HMRC for VAT wrongly paid, finding they had no direct relationship with HMRC.
3. The Advocate General issued an opinion in an input VAT recovery case, arguing that a Bulgarian developer could not reclaim VAT on works to upgrade a water pumping station as there was no link to its taxable business activities.
VAT Update - Brockenhurst College
HMRC lose this high profile case at the latest stage. Of interest to those in the education sector and charities.
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.
Case Alert Wakefield College - Upper Tribunal
This document provides information about Grant Thornton UK LLP and its relationship with Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). It states that Grant Thornton UK LLP is a separate legal entity from GTIL and other member firms. Services are delivered independently by each member firm. GTIL does not provide services to clients directly. The document also notes that it is intended only as a general guide and Grant Thornton cannot be liable for any losses resulting from its use.
ITU 03/2016
The Upper Tribunal issued three decisions this week:
1. It allowed HMRC's appeal in the Wakefield College case, overturning the earlier decision that a new building qualified for VAT zero-rating. The Tribunal found that where students paid full fees, the education provided was a business activity.
2. It allowed Find My Past Ltd's appeal, finding that credits purchased were not pre-payments for future access but "face-value vouchers" so VAT was only due when redeemed, allowing refunds for unused credits.
3. The Court of Justice ruled that Belgium could view a for-profit organization providing assisted housing for the elderly as "charitable" and exempt its welfare services from VAT based on
ITU 04/2017
This document summarizes three VAT tribunal cases:
1) A university challenged HMRC's view that it owed VAT on fees paid to overseas agents who help recruit foreign students. The tribunal mostly agreed with HMRC, except that fees before 2010 were not subject to VAT.
2) Marriott and Whitbread's appeals about a loyalty points scheme were dismissed, with the tribunal finding the nature of supplies was different than claimed.
3) A freight agent was denied VAT repayment on imports when the customer went insolvent and conditions of an extra-statutory concession were not met.
UK Case Alert: HMRC v DPAS Ltd (Upper Tribunal)
Transactions relating to payments or transfers of money are specifically exempted from VAT by the Principal VAT Directive. The questions in this case were whether DPAS supplied services to patients and, if so, whether they were exempt from VAT under this particular heading.
The CJEU issued a judgment in 2010 in a similar case (Axa Denplan) which ruled that the services were not exempt transactions but were, instead, debt collection services which were subject to VAT.
DPAS' response to Axa Denplan was to alter its business model to ensure that its services were supplied to the patients and could not, therefore be regarded as debt collection.
VAT briefing paper - private providers of education
The document discusses recent cases that have challenged the UK's interpretation of the EU VAT exemption for education supplies. The UK law takes no account of the aims of education providers and fails to correctly implement the EU Directive. Two recent cases - Finance & Business Training Ltd and The Open University - have highlighted flaws in UK law and created opportunities for commercial education providers to claim exemption. While uncertainties remain as cases progress through the courts, commercial providers should monitor developments and protect their position regarding historic VAT payments.
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.
ITU 15/2017
The Supreme Court heard the case of Littlewoods & Ors v HMRC, which centered around whether taxpayers are entitled to interest above the statutory interest rate for VAT overpayments under EU law. Littlewoods argued it was due over £1 billion in additional interest, while HMRC believes the statutory rate satisfies adequate indemnity. The court signaled it would either agree with HMRC or refer the issue to the European Court of Justice for clarification. Additionally, a tribunal ruled supplies by a university student union were taxable, and an advocate general found German law treating health insurers differently for VAT violated the principle of fiscal neutrality.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
ITU 37/2016 final
The First-tier Tax Tribunal issued two important decisions. The first concerned whether services provided by two companies took place in the UK or outside based on place of supply rules. The Tribunal concluded the companies had a fixed establishment in the UK, so supplies were in the UK and subject to UK VAT. The second concerned whether the customer in an insurance agency case was the insurer or insured person. Based on the contract, the Tribunal found the customer was the insurer. Finally, HMRC announced plans to extend the disclosure regime for tax avoidance schemes to VAT and indirect taxes in September 2017.
Similar to Case Alert Brockenhurst College (20)
Case Alert Financial & Business Training Ltd - Court of Appeal
Case Alert Financial & Business Training Ltd - Court of Appeal
VAT briefing paper - private providers of education
VAT briefing paper - private providers of education
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.
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.
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.
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.
Case alert - Boehringer Ingleheim Pharma CJEU Judgment
This document summarizes a court case from the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the calculation of value-added tax (VAT) on supplies of pharmaceutical products where the initial price is later reduced. The taxpayer, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co KG, manufactures and supplies medications to pharmacies in Germany via wholesalers. For supplies covered by public health insurance, Boehringer reimbursed discounts provided to insurance funds, and the tax authority allowed Boehringer to reduce the taxable value. However, for private insurance, similar reimbursements were not allowed as a reduction. The Court ruled that the principle of equal treatment requires both arrangements be treated the same for VAT - where the final
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.
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
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
Case alert - Boehringer Ingleheim Pharma CJEU Judgment
Case alert - Boehringer Ingleheim Pharma CJEU Judgment
Recently uploaded
一比一原版(UCSB毕业证)圣芭芭拉分校毕业证如何办理
UCSB毕业证文凭证书【微信95270640】办理圣芭芭拉分校毕业证成绩单（Q微信95270640）毕业证学历认证OFFER专卖国外文凭学历学位证书办理澳洲文凭|澳洲毕业证,澳洲学历认证,澳洲成绩单 澳洲offer,教育部学历认证及使馆认证永久可查 ,国外毕业证|国外学历认证,国外学历文凭证书 UCSB毕业证，UCSB毕业证，UCSB毕业证，UCSB毕业证，UCSB毕业证，UCSB毕业证，UCSB毕业证，专业为留学生办理毕业证、成绩单、使馆留学回国人员证明、教育部学历学位认证、录取通知书、Offer、
【实体公司】办圣芭芭拉分校圣芭芭拉分校毕业证成绩单学历认证学位证文凭认证办留信网认证办留服认证办教育部认证（网上可查实体公司专业可靠）
— — — 留学归国服务中心 — — -
【主营项目】
一.圣芭芭拉分校毕业证成绩单使馆认证教育部认证成绩单等！
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)
国外毕业证学位证成绩单办理流程：
1客户提供圣芭芭拉分校圣芭芭拉分校毕业证成绩单办理信息：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）。
专业服务请勿犹豫联系我！本公司是留学创业和海归创业者们的桥梁。一次办理终生受用一步到位高效服务。详情请在线咨询办理,欢迎有诚意办理的客户咨询!洽谈。
招聘代理：本公司诚聘英国加拿大澳洲新西兰美国法国德国新加坡各地代理人员如果你有业余时间有兴趣就请联系我们咨询顾问：+微信:95270640田里逡巡一番抱起一只硕大的西瓜用石刀劈开抑或用拳头砸开每人抱起一大块就啃啃得满嘴满脸猴屁股般的红艳大家一个劲地指着对方吃吃地笑瓜裂得古怪奇形怪状却丝毫不影响瓜味甜丝丝的满嘴生津遍地都是瓜横七竖八的活像掷满了一地的大石块摘走二三只爷爷是断然发现不了的即便发现爷爷也不恼反而教山娃辨认孰熟孰嫩孰甜孰淡名义上是护瓜往往在瓜棚里坐上一刻饱吃一顿后山娃就领着阿黑漫山遍野地跑阿黑是一条黑色的大猎狗挺机灵的是山室
How Does CRISIL Evaluate Lenders in India for Credit Ratings
CRISIL evaluates lenders in India by analyzing financial performance, loan portfolio quality, risk management practices, capital adequacy, market position, and adherence to regulatory requirements. This comprehensive assessment ensures a thorough evaluation of creditworthiness and financial strength. Each criterion is meticulously examined to provide credible and reliable ratings.
一比一原版(IC毕业证)帝国理工大学毕业证如何办理
IC毕业证文凭证书【微信95270640】一比一伪造帝国理工大学文凭@假冒IC毕业证成绩单+Q微信95270640办理IC学位证书@仿造IC毕业文凭证书@购买帝国理工大学毕业证成绩单IC真实使馆认证/真实留信认证回国人员证明
如果您是以下情况，我们都能竭诚为您解决实际问题：【公司采用定金+余款的付款流程，以最大化保障您的利益，让您放心无忧】
1、在校期间，因各种原因未能顺利毕业，拿不到官方毕业证+微信95270640
2、面对父母的压力，希望尽快拿到帝国理工大学帝国理工大学毕业证学历书；
3、不清楚流程以及材料该如何准备帝国理工大学帝国理工大学毕业证学历书；
4、回国时间很长，忘记办理；
5、回国马上就要找工作，办给用人单位看；
6、企事业单位必须要求办理的；
面向美国乔治城大学毕业留学生提供以下服务:
【★帝国理工大学帝国理工大学毕业证学历书毕业证、成绩单等全套材料，从防伪到印刷，从水印到钢印烫金，与学校100%相同】
【★真实使馆认证（留学人员回国证明），使馆存档可通过大使馆查询确认】
【★真实教育部认证，教育部存档，教育部留服网站可查】
【★真实留信认证，留信网入库存档，可查帝国理工大学帝国理工大学毕业证学历书】
我们从事工作十余年的有着丰富经验的业务顾问，熟悉海外各国大学的学制及教育体系，并且以挂科生解决毕业材料不全问题为基础，为客户量身定制1对1方案，未能毕业的回国留学生成功搭建回国顺利发展所需的桥梁。我们一直努力以高品质的教育为起点，以诚信、专业、高效、创新作为一切的行动宗旨，始终把“诚信为主、质量为本、客户第一”作为我们全部工作的出发点和归宿点。同时为海内外留学生提供大学毕业证购买、补办成绩单及各类分数修改等服务；归国认证方面，提供《留信网入库》申请、《国外学历学位认证》申请以及真实学籍办理等服务，帮助众多莘莘学子实现了一个又一个梦想。
专业服务，请勿犹豫联系我
如果您真实毕业回国，对于学历认证无从下手，请联系我，我们免费帮您递交
诚招代理：本公司诚聘当地代理人员，如果你有业余时间，或者你有同学朋友需要，有兴趣就请联系我
你赢我赢，共创双赢
你做代理，可以帮助帝国理工大学同学朋友
你做代理，可以拯救帝国理工大学失足青年
你做代理，可以挽救帝国理工大学一个个人才
你做代理，你将是别人人生帝国理工大学的转折点
你做代理，可以改变自己，改变他人，给他人和自己一个机会美景更增添一份性感夹杂着一份纯洁的妖娆毫无违和感实在给人带来一份悠然幸福的心情如果说现在的审美已经断然拒绝了无声的话那么在树林间飞掠而过的小鸟叽叽咋咋的叫声是否就是这最后的点睛之笔悠然走在林间的小路上宁静与清香一丝丝的盛夏气息吸入身体昔日生活里的繁忙与焦躁早已淡然无存心中满是悠然清淡的芳菲身体不由的轻松脚步也感到无比的轻快走出这盘栾交错的小道眼前是连绵不绝的山峦浩荡天地间大自然毫无吝啬的展现它的达
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
Earn a passive income with prosocial investing
Invest in prosocial funds that earn you an income while improving the world
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.
STREETONOMICS: Exploring the Uncharted Territories of Informal Markets throug...
Delve into the world of STREETONOMICS, where a team of 7 enthusiasts embarks on a journey to understand unorganized markets. By engaging with a coffee street vendor and crafting questionnaires, this project uncovers valuable insights into consumer behavior and market dynamics in informal settings."
Who Is the Largest Producer of Soybean in India Now.pdf
This blog explores the current largest producer of soybean in India and the factors contributing to their dominance.
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.
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！
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024) FDI, Culture, Glo...
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024) FDI, Culture, Glo...AntoniaOwensDetwiler
"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.What's a worker’s market? Job quality and labour market tightness
What's a worker’s market? Job quality and labour market tightnessLabour Market Information Council | Conseil de l’information sur le marché du travail
In a tight labour market, job-seekers gain bargaining power and leverage it into greater job quality—at least, that’s the conventional wisdom.
Michael, LMIC Economist, presented findings that reveal a weakened relationship between labour market tightness and job quality indicators following the pandemic. Labour market tightness coincided with growth in real wages for only a portion of workers: those in low-wage jobs requiring little education. Several factors—including labour market composition, worker and employer behaviour, and labour market practices—have contributed to the absence of worker benefits. These will be investigated further in future work.快速办理(SMU毕业证书)南卫理公会大学毕业证毕业完成信一模一样
学校原件一模一样【微信：741003700 】《(SMU毕业证书)南卫理公会大学毕业证》【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
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
Economic Risk Factor Update: June 2024 [SlideShare]
May’s reports showed signs of continued economic growth, said Sam Millette, director, fixed income, in his latest Economic Risk Factor Update.
For more market updates, subscribe to The Independent Market Observer at https://blog.commonwealth.com/independent-market-observer.
SWAIAP Fraud Risk Mitigation Prof Oyedokun.pptx
SWAIAP Fraud Risk Mitigation Prof Oyedokun.pptxGodwin Emmanuel Oyedokun MBA MSc PhD FCA FCTI FCNA CFE FFAR
Lecture slide titled Fraud Risk Mitigation, Webinar Lecture Delivered at the Society for West African Internal Audit Practitioners (SWAIAP) on Wednesday, November 8, 2023.
Seminar: Gender Board Diversity through Ownership Networks
Seminar on gender diversity spillovers through ownership networks at FAME|GRAPE. Presenting novel research. Studies in economics and management using econometrics methods.
Who Is Abhay Bhutada, MD of Poonawalla Fincorp
Abhay Bhutada, the Managing Director of Poonawalla Fincorp Limited, is an accomplished leader with over 15 years of experience in commercial and retail lending. A Qualified Chartered Accountant, he has been pivotal in leveraging technology to enhance financial services. Starting his career at Bank of India, he later founded TAB Capital Limited and co-founded Poonawalla Finance Private Limited, emphasizing digital lending. Under his leadership, Poonawalla Fincorp achieved a 'AAA' credit rating, integrating acquisitions and emphasizing corporate governance. Actively involved in industry forums and CSR initiatives, Abhay has been recognized with awards like "Young Entrepreneur of India 2017" and "40 under 40 Most Influential Leader for 2020-21." Personally, he values mindfulness, enjoys gardening, yoga, and sees every day as an opportunity for growth and improvement.
Recently uploaded (20)
How Does CRISIL Evaluate Lenders in India for Credit Ratings
How Does CRISIL Evaluate Lenders in India for Credit Ratings
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024)
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024)
STREETONOMICS: Exploring the Uncharted Territories of Informal Markets throug...
STREETONOMICS: Exploring the Uncharted Territories of Informal Markets throug...
Who Is the Largest Producer of Soybean in India Now.pdf
Who Is the Largest Producer of Soybean in India Now.pdf
1. Elemental Economics - Introduction to mining.pdf
1. Elemental Economics - Introduction to mining.pdf
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024) FDI, Culture, Glo...
Independent Study - College of Wooster Research (2023-2024) FDI, Culture, Glo...
What's a worker’s market? Job quality and labour market tightness
What's a worker’s market? Job quality and labour market tightness
Tumelo-deep-dive-into-pass-through-voting-Feb23 (1).pdf
Tumelo-deep-dive-into-pass-through-voting-Feb23 (1).pdf
Economic Risk Factor Update: June 2024 [SlideShare]
Economic Risk Factor Update: June 2024 [SlideShare]
Seminar: Gender Board Diversity through Ownership Networks
Seminar: Gender Board Diversity through Ownership Networks
Case Alert Brockenhurst College
- 1. © 2015 Grant Thornton UK LLP. All rights reserved. ‘Grant Thornton’ refers to the brand under which the Grant Thornton member firms provide assurance, tax and advisory services to their clients and/or refers to one or more member firms, as the context requires. Grant Thornton UK LLP is a member firm of Grant Thornton International Ltd (GTIL). GTIL and the member firms are not a worldwide partnership. GTIL and each member firm is a separate legal entity. Services are delivered by the member firms. GTIL does not provide services to clients. 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. grant-thornton.co.uk GRT100456 Summary Under EU law, provided that certain conditions are met, the supply of education is exempt from VAT. In addition, the supply of goods or of services closely related thereto are also exempt from VAT. The question to resolve in this case is whether supplies of services (restaurant meals and performances) provided by the College to members of the public for consideration is a 'closely related' supply which should also benefit from the exemption. In both cases, the students gain practical experience as part of their courses. HMRC considers that the supplies are separate from the education and are taxable at the standard rate of VAT. The Court of Justice will deliver its judgment in due course. 4 December 2015 Court of Appeal The Court of Appeal has finally issued its judgment in the Brockenhurst College case. The issue at stake here is the question of whether certain supplies made for consideration by the college to members of the public are exempt from VAT as being 'closely related' to the supply of education it makes to students. The college contends that they are so related whereas HMRC consider that they are separate supplies and are liable to VAT at the standard rate of 20%. In earlier hearings at the First-tier Tax Tribunal (FTT) and the Upper Tribunal (UT), the matter was decided in favour of the College. This is HMRC's appeal from the UT. As is common with many colleges of further education, students enrol onto various courses. The courses in question in this case were courses related to catering and to the performing arts. As part of the curriculum, students were given practical experience of catering to members of the public in the college training restaurant. Similarly, as far as performing arts were concerned, students put on shows and entertainment to members of the public. In both scenarios, the members of the public attending either the restaurant or the entertainment paid money for the meal or entrance ticket. The College maintains that although the supplies are made to members of the public, nevertheless, the supplies are closely related to the principal supply of education provided to the students. The VAT Directive provides an exemption for such closely related services. The Court of Appeal agreed with both parties that the VAT Directive is not clear and that, in order to obtain clarity on the meaning of the term 'closely related', it is necessary for the matter to be referred to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. Comment – What seems a relatively straightforward issue appears to have three eminent appeal court judges in something of a quandary. It will now taker a further 18 months or so to get a definitive answer. HMRC v Brockenhurst College Case Alert Contact Stuart Brodie Scotland stuart.brodie@uk.gt.com (0)14 1223 0683 Karen Robb London & South East karen.robb@uk.gt.com (0)20 772 82556