‘This article gives consideration of the decision of the Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) in Janine Ingram v Church Commissioners for England [2015] UKUT.’
Tanfield Chambers, 26th April 2016
Source: www.tanfieldchambers.co.uk
Supreme Court, 17th February 2016
‘Catalogue company Shop Direct must pay corporation tax on a £125 million repayment of VAT overpaid by companies in the group that no longer trade, the Supreme Court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 18th February 2016
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Alcohol duty fraud costs the treasury an estimated £1 billion per annum. HMRC has stated that
‘the wholesale sector is the major point where illicit alcohol is diverted by organised criminals into retail supply chains…this link in the supply chain is vulnerable because it is the only activity not required to be authorised by HMRC…Introducing a requirement for wholesalers to register with HMRC will address this and reduce opportunities for fraud.’’
11 KBW, 4th September 2015
Source: www.11kbw.com
‘The element of chance in a computerised slot machine connected to a separate random number generator (RNG) was still “provided by means of the machine” for the purposes of VAT legislation, meaning that the takings from that machine were subject to VAT, the UK’s highest court has confirmed.’
OUT-LAW.com, 10th July 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
Rank Group plc v Revenue and Customs Comrs: [2015] UKSC 48; [2015] WLR (D) 299
‘Slot machines operating through multi-terminal systems in which random number generators (“RNGs”) were housed separately from the terminals were to be treated as composite machines providing players with an element of chance in the game within the meaning of section 26 of the Gaming Act 1968 and Group 4, item 1, note (3) of Schedule 9 to the Value Added Tax Act 1994. The takings from such machines were, accordingly, not exempt but liable to value added tax.’
WLR Daily, 8th July 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘HM Revenue and Customs (HMRC) should not look beyond the contractual arrangements that govern a company’s structure when establishing liability for VAT unless those arrangements do not reflect “economic and commercial reality”, a tribunal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 5th June 2015
Source: www.out-law.com
‘In accordance with a taxpayer’s rights under European Union law, sections 78 and 80 of the Value Added Tax act 1994 would be disapplied to enable the taxpayer to recover more than simple interest by seeking to recover in restitution the time value of sums which they wrongly paid.’
WLR Daily, 21st May 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Regina v Doran and another [2015] EWCA Crim 384; [2015] WLR (D) 129
‘A surveillance operation mounted by Revenue and Customs because they suspected that a consignment of cigarettes were being imported with the purpose of evading the duty payable did not result in a disconnection between the goods and the importers. Revenue and Customs were thereby monitoring the import, not controlling it, so that a judge was entitled to find that the importers were “holding” the goods within the meaning of regulation 13(1) of the Tobacco Products Regulations 2001 and, by that means, were retaining their connection with the goods at the excise duty point.’
WLR Daily, 17th March 2015
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘The First-tier Tribunal (Tax Chamber) (“FTT”) has ruled, in Citibank NA v Revenue and Customs Commissioners, that HMRC’s pleadings were “seriously flawed”. When alleging fraud against a taxpayer, HMRC must clearly plead that the taxpayer had a dishonest state of mind.’
RPC Tax Take, 14th January 2015
Source: www.rpc.co.uk
‘The High Court had jurisdiction to appoint a provisional liquidator notwithstanding the fact that appeals by the company in respect of disputed VAT assessments were pending in the First-tier Tax Tribunal.’
WLR Daily, 16th October 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Over the summer, the Court of Appeal handed down judgment in the case of CLP Holding Company Ltd v Singh (1) & Kaur (2) [2014] EWCA Civ 1103. The case throws up some useful warnings and reminders about VAT on property transfers, the proper construction of contracts and hierarchy clauses.’
Hardwicke Chambers, 8th October 2014
Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk
‘Proposed amendments to UK tax rules are being consulted on by HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) to recognise a new simplified mechanism that is being introduced for reporting VAT owed on the supply of digital services following changes to EU laws.’
OUT-LAW.com, 30th July 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
‘Two judges taste a range of snacks ‘in moderation’ at tax tribunal hearing and decide that Snowballs are cakes and thus VAT zero-rated.’
Daily Telegraph, 27th June 2014
Source: www.telegraph.co.uk
Regina v Ahmad and another: Regina v Fields and others: [2014] UKSC 36; [2014] WLR (D) 264
‘Where the court, in confiscation proceedings, found that the benefit of the relevant criminal conduct had been jointly obtained, each defendant was liable for the whole of the amount of the benefit and no apportionment was to be made between the co-defendants. However, to avoid double recovery by the state, where there was finding of joint obtaining, so that the confiscation order in respect of each defendant was made for the value of the whole benefit, the order would contain the condition that it would not to be enforced to the extent that a sum had been recovered by way of satisfaction of another confiscation order made in relation to the same joint benefit.’
WLR Daily, 18th June 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
Supreme Court, 18th June 2014
‘Where the taxpayer made a claim for repayment of VAT which had been paid owing to a mistake, all the consequences of the mistake were to be taken into account in assessing the quantum of his claim. The revenue was, therefore, entitled under section 81(3A) of the Value Added Tax Act 1994 to take into account both credits and debits and to set off amounts of input tax it had wrongly paid to the taxpayer against the amount the taxpayer now claimed to be repaid in respect of output tax it wrongly paid to the revenue.’
WLR Daily, 22nd May 2014
Source: www.iclr.co.uk
‘Hire purchase (HP) agreements will not necessarily amount to a supply of goods for the purposes of VAT liability at the outset of the contract, the UK’s Upper Tax Tribunal has ruled.’
OUT-LAW.com, 19th May 2014
Source: www.out-law.com
© Inner Temple Library 2025