In DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKSC 26 (12 October 2022) the Supreme Court (SC) held that an assessment of output tax under-declared on mixed supplies made by the appellant was not time barred. It also upheld HMRC’s power to refuse a person’s claim for input tax credit whilst it is verified and to decide later to pay a lower amount than what had been claimed.
DCM was a VAT-registered business which specialised in the sale of dispensed spectacles and laser eye surgery under the name Optical Express. It was partly exempt for VAT purposes and made mixed supplies for which the income had to be apportioned between taxable and exempt.
The taxpayer and HMRC had been in dispute for many years but the relevant disputes for the purposes of this appeal to the SC related to:
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 DCM (Optical Holdings) Ltd v HMRC [2022] UKSC 26 (12 October 2022) the Supreme Court (SC) held that an assessment of output tax under-declared on mixed supplies made by the appellant was not time barred. It also upheld HMRC’s power to refuse a person’s claim for input tax credit whilst it is verified and to decide later to pay a lower amount than what had been claimed.
DCM was a VAT-registered business which specialised in the sale of dispensed spectacles and laser eye surgery under the name Optical Express. It was partly exempt for VAT purposes and made mixed supplies for which the income had to be apportioned between taxable and exempt.
The taxpayer and HMRC had been in dispute for many years but the relevant disputes for the purposes of this appeal to the SC related to:
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: