In Aria Technology Ltd v HMRC (TC 03410 – 17 March 2014) the FTT allowed the appeal against HMRC’s issue of a security notice under VATA 1994 Sch 11 para 4.
The FTT noted that the taxpayer had understood from correspondence and discussions with HMRC that it was tacitly agreed that the company would be able to retain as working capital a sum of VAT which would otherwise be payable and that no amount would be payable until the conclusion of MTIC proceedings. This was the reason why the taxpayer had reduced payments of VAT after HMRC had refused to repay input tax (because of the alleged connection to MTIC fraud). Although the tribunal accepted that it had no jurisdiction on the question of the appellant’s ‘reasonable expectation’ it stressed that this expectation should have been taken into consideration by HMRC when...
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 Aria Technology Ltd v HMRC (TC 03410 – 17 March 2014) the FTT allowed the appeal against HMRC’s issue of a security notice under VATA 1994 Sch 11 para 4.
The FTT noted that the taxpayer had understood from correspondence and discussions with HMRC that it was tacitly agreed that the company would be able to retain as working capital a sum of VAT which would otherwise be payable and that no amount would be payable until the conclusion of MTIC proceedings. This was the reason why the taxpayer had reduced payments of VAT after HMRC had refused to repay input tax (because of the alleged connection to MTIC fraud). Although the tribunal accepted that it had no jurisdiction on the question of the appellant’s ‘reasonable expectation’ it stressed that this expectation should have been taken into consideration by HMRC when...
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:
