In AC (Wholesale) v HMRC[2017] UKUT 191 (12 May 2017) the UT found that HMRC did not have to review all possible explanations for the relevant transaction in order to apply the Mobilx test [2010] EWCA Civ 517.
AC was a wholesaler of consumer electronic products. In 2009 and 2010 AC had entered into six deals in which it had purchased televisions from suppliers in the UK; and immediately or soon after had sold them to customers. Most of the sales had been to customers registered for VAT in other EU countries or in Jersey and most but not all of the televisions were exported. All of the relevant repurchases traced back to defaulting traders who charged VAT but then disappeared without accounting for it.
HMRC had refused to repay the input tax claimed by AC on the ground...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
In AC (Wholesale) v HMRC[2017] UKUT 191 (12 May 2017) the UT found that HMRC did not have to review all possible explanations for the relevant transaction in order to apply the Mobilx test [2010] EWCA Civ 517.
AC was a wholesaler of consumer electronic products. In 2009 and 2010 AC had entered into six deals in which it had purchased televisions from suppliers in the UK; and immediately or soon after had sold them to customers. Most of the sales had been to customers registered for VAT in other EU countries or in Jersey and most but not all of the televisions were exported. All of the relevant repurchases traced back to defaulting traders who charged VAT but then disappeared without accounting for it.
HMRC had refused to repay the input tax claimed by AC on the ground...
If you or your firm subscribes to Taxjournal.com, please click the login box below:
If you do not subscribe but are a registered user, please enter your details in the following boxes:
