In Deliverance Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 16 February) a company (D) delivered a wide range of foods including crispy duck pancakes spring rolls samosas falafels sesame prawn toasts and onion bhajis. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC’s ruling that these items failed to qualify for zero-rating. However the Upper Tribunal allowed D’s appeal against this decision. Proudman J held that D’s purpose in heating the food had been to comply with food hygiene regulations rather than to enable the food to be consumed at a temperature above the ambient air temperature. Accordingly applying the principles laid down by the CA in John Pimblett & Sons Ltd v C & E Commrs [1988] STC 358 the supplies qualified for zero-rating.
Why it matters: VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 1 provides that supplies of food may...
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 Deliverance Ltd v HMRC (Upper Tribunal – 16 February) a company (D) delivered a wide range of foods including crispy duck pancakes spring rolls samosas falafels sesame prawn toasts and onion bhajis. The First-tier Tribunal upheld HMRC’s ruling that these items failed to qualify for zero-rating. However the Upper Tribunal allowed D’s appeal against this decision. Proudman J held that D’s purpose in heating the food had been to comply with food hygiene regulations rather than to enable the food to be consumed at a temperature above the ambient air temperature. Accordingly applying the principles laid down by the CA in John Pimblett & Sons Ltd v C & E Commrs [1988] STC 358 the supplies qualified for zero-rating.
Why it matters: VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 1 provides that supplies of food may...
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:
