In David Peters Ltd v HMRC (TC01819 – 28 February) a company reclaimed input tax on the purchase of a large quantity of plant and machinery which had never been delivered. HMRC rejected the claim but the tribunal allowed the company’s appeal. Judge Khan declined to follow the QB decision in Pennystar Ltd v C & E Commrs [1996] STC 163 and held that the effect of Sale of Goods Act 1979 s 18 was that ‘where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods as we have here which are in a deliverable state the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made and it is immaterial whether the time of delivery is postponed provided the goods are in a deliverable state. For this purpose an unconditional...
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 David Peters Ltd v HMRC (TC01819 – 28 February) a company reclaimed input tax on the purchase of a large quantity of plant and machinery which had never been delivered. HMRC rejected the claim but the tribunal allowed the company’s appeal. Judge Khan declined to follow the QB decision in Pennystar Ltd v C & E Commrs [1996] STC 163 and held that the effect of Sale of Goods Act 1979 s 18 was that ‘where there is an unconditional contract for the sale of specific goods as we have here which are in a deliverable state the property in the goods passes to the buyer when the contract is made and it is immaterial whether the time of delivery is postponed provided the goods are in a deliverable state. For this purpose an unconditional...
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:
