‘In this post, Jack Prytherch, Of Counsel in the Tax team at CMS, previews the case of News Corp UK & Ireland Limited v Commissioners for His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs, which is scheduled to be heard on 22 and 23 November 2022.’
UKSC Blog, 31st October 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This appeal concerns the correct approach to evidence and the burden and standard of proof in the context of historic claims for the recovery of input Value Added Tax (“VAT”). Input tax is the VAT incurred when the taxpayer buys in supplies which it uses for the purpose of a business activity.’
UKSC Blog, 19th October 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘On 19 May 2017 HMRC decided that SNMP was not entitled to repayments of input tax claimed in respect of ten accounting periods and issued assessments for £312,377. That decision was later confirmed following a statutory review under sections 83A-G Value Added Tax Act 1994 (“VATA”). The solicitors for SNMP submitted a notice of appeal on 18 August 2017 but an application for hardship was not made nor had the amount in dispute been paid. As a consequence the FTT returned the appeal. The solicitors for SNMP re-submitted the appeal on 31 August 2017 but the disputed tax had still not been paid and neither had a hardship application been made. On the same date the FTT returned the appeal for the same reason as before by e-mail. Unfortunately the FTT used the wrong e-mail address for the solicitor and it was never received.’
23 Essex Street, 25th August 2022
Source: www.23es.com
‘DCM is an optician that sells spectacles and provides refractive eye surgery services. Under the value added tax regime, it makes both taxable supplies of goods and exempt supplies of medical services. The dual nature of its supplies creates difficulties in calculating the amount of VAT chargeable on its supplies and input tax recoverable on its acquisitions. In fact, from at least 2000, DCM had been in dispute with HMRC over a different input tax and output tax related issue.’
UKSC Blog, 25th May 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘This is the second judgment given by the Supreme Court in this case. In the first judgment ([2020] UKSC 15), the Court set out the background to the dispute and made a reference to the Court of Justice of the European Union, upon which judgment was delivered on the 13th of January 2022. The Supreme Court could then determine this appeal without the need for any further hearing.’
UKSC Blog, 11th May 2022
Source: ukscblog.com
‘The High Court upheld an application made by the liquidator of JD Group Ltd (“the company”) claiming that Deepak Bhatia, the company director, was engaged in fraudulent trading owing to knowledge that the company was associated with VAT fraud. Judge Agnello QC found that the manner in which the respective transactions were carried out provided clear evidence of this knowledge and that Bhatia’s conduct was dishonest in accordance with the objective standards of ordinary decent people.’
OUT-LAW.com, 3rd March 2022
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The UK’s First-tier tax Tribunal (FTT) has no general jurisdiction to judicially review decisions made by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC), but it can consider public law arguments in some VAT appeals within its jurisdiction, the Upper Tribunal (UT) has said.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th October 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘The sale and leaseback of a newly constructed care home was not a disposal of the entire interest in the care home, so as to trigger a claw-back of the VAT zero-rating which had applied when the property was acquired from the developer, the UK’s Supreme Court has decided.’
OUT-LAW.com, 13th April 2021
Source: www.pinsentmasons.com
‘In Bilta (UK) Ltd (in liquidation) & Others v Tradition Financial Services Ltd [2021] EWCA Civ 221 the Court of Appeal examined the principles to be applied when a party seeks an adjournment because a witness is unable to attend the trial due to ill-health.’
No. 5 Chambers, 4th March 2021
Source: www.no5.com
‘In this post, Jacob Gilkes, a member of the tax team at CMS, previews the decision awaited from the UK Supreme Court in the matter of Balhousie Holdings Limited v The Commissioners for Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs, which concerns whether a sale and leaseback transaction should be regarded for VAT purposes as a disposal by the seller of its “entire interest” in the building.’
UKSC Blog, 25th February 2021
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In this case note, Jack Williams of Monckton Chambers analyses the recent decision of the Upper Tribunal in Colchester Institute Corporation v HMRC [2020] UKUT 0368 (“Colchester”). In summary, in overturning the First Tier Tribunal’s decision, the Upper Tribunal held that state-funding did have a sufficient link to the provision of education and vocational training provided by a college to constitute supply of services for consideration and economic activity. Nevertheless, HMRC was entitled to set-off input tax to reduce the taxpayer’s repayment claim. The implications of the case are likely to be profound: many businesses – educational and otherwise – supplying services that are funded by state agencies are now likely to argue that their provision of services does, in fact, constitute the supply of services for consideration and economic activity. That being so, there would be no need to account for output tax on those services and any accounted for with HMRC may be recoverable.’
Monckton Chambers, January 2021
Source: www.monckton.com
‘The caps set out in the Civil Procedure Rules on the costs payable by losing parties in Aarhus Convention claims are inclusive of VAT, the Court of Appeal has ruled as part of the third Heathrow runway litigation.’
Local Government Lawyer, 13th January 2021
Source: www.localgovernmentlawyer.co.uk
‘The former owner of BHS has been convicted of evading tax on £2.2m of income he received from buying the failed high-street chain. Instead of paying the tax he knew he owed, Dominic Chappell, 53, spent a fortune on a luxury lifestyle that included a £90,000 yacht, a Bentley Continental car, a Bahamas holiday and some expensive Beretta guns, Southwark Crown Court heard.’
The Independent, 5th November 2020
Source: www.independent.co.uk
‘The First-tier Tribunal has refused to grant HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) a wasted costs order despite its opponents instructing their QC on the wrong issue.’
Litigation Futures, 23rd July 2020
Source: www.litigationfutures.com
‘The Appellant (“the taxpayer”) operates bingo clubs. Customers pay a fee, which entitles them to play in a number of bingo games (collectively, a “session”). The present dispute arises from a change in guidance given by HMRC about how participation fees should be calculated. Until 2007, the guidance stated that bingo promoters should calculate the participation fees separately for each game. In February 2007, HMRC issued Business Brief 07/07, which stated that participation fees should be calculated on a session by session basis.’
UKSC Blog, 24th June 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘Supplies of theatre and museum tickets fall within the ‘cultural exemption’ under Schedule 9 of the VAT Act 1994. However, the business model of many cultural venues does not rely solely on income from ticket sales. As well as funds from public grants and endowments, many venues also make taxable supplies of food and drink at on-site bars and restaurants, or sell other merchandise too. On the input side, venues will have paid VAT on the costs of staging productions or putting on exhibitions. The present appeal concerned whether the Royal Opera House’s production costs fell to be attributed solely to its exempt sales of tickets and taxable sales of programmes, or alternatively to a wider range of taxable supplies, principally its bar and restaurant offerings.’
Monckton Chambers, June 2020
Source: www.monckton.com
‘In HMRC v Royal Opera House Covent Garden Foundation [2020] UKUT 132 (TCC), the Upper Tribunal (Morgan J and Judge Timothy Herrington) held that VAT paid on theatre production costs was not recoverable on the basis of an economic link to taxable catering supplies, overruling a decision in the Opera House’s favour at first instance. The ruling will be significant not just for the wider theatre industry, but more generally as regards the relevance of ‘commercial reality’ arguments to questions of input tax deduction.’
Monckton Chambers, 3rd June 2020
Source: www.monckton.com
‘Carbon credit VAT fraud has been the subject of an increased investigation by the government and prosecuting authorities, but the bodies generating carbon credits are usually based overseas and authorities in the UK have no control of the quality or validity of the carbon credit schemes.’
St Paul's Chambers, 23rd April 2020
Source: www.stpaulschambers.com
‘The case concerned whether Zipvit, a trader selling vitamins and minerals by mail order, is entitled when accounting for VAT on its sales to make deductions of input VAT (the tax paid by the trader on goods and services purchased in connection with its business, as opposed to output VAT, which is the tax charged to the consumer by the trader on its goods or services) in respect of the price of postal services supplied to it by Royal Mail.’
UKSC Blog, 1 April 2020
Source: ukscblog.com
‘In the 1984 film Karate Kid, Mr Miyagi admonished Daniel: “I say; you do. No questions”. However, with VAT, there are always questions.’
3PB, 29th January 2020
Source: www.3pb.co.uk
© Inner Temple Library 2025