In British Eventing Ltd v HMRC (TC00664 – 2 September) a company (B) acquired the lease of a racecourse in 1997. It arranged for another company (T) to manage the course. The racecourse needed substantial repair work and in 2007 B decided to assign the lease to T. It was agreed that B should pay T a substantial ‘reverse premium’ of £340 000 while T should pay B a nominal consideration on the assignment of the lease. In October 2007 B wrote to HMRC applying for permission to opt to tax the racecourse with the intention of reclaiming input tax. HMRC refused to grant B permission on the grounds that B would not be making any further taxable supplies after the assignment so that the input tax that B wished to recover was ‘not attributable to any...
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 British Eventing Ltd v HMRC (TC00664 – 2 September) a company (B) acquired the lease of a racecourse in 1997. It arranged for another company (T) to manage the course. The racecourse needed substantial repair work and in 2007 B decided to assign the lease to T. It was agreed that B should pay T a substantial ‘reverse premium’ of £340 000 while T should pay B a nominal consideration on the assignment of the lease. In October 2007 B wrote to HMRC applying for permission to opt to tax the racecourse with the intention of reclaiming input tax. HMRC refused to grant B permission on the grounds that B would not be making any further taxable supplies after the assignment so that the input tax that B wished to recover was ‘not attributable to any...
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:
