The case of Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v HMRC (No. 2) (Ch D – 27 April) follows on from the earlier decision in Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v HMRC (No. 1) (TC00680) where the First-tier Tribunal allowed a substantial claim to input tax by a company which HMRC had suspected of involvement in MTIC fraud. HMRC sought to deduct unpaid corporation tax and PAYE from the VAT repayment. The company sought judicial review of the proposed set-off. The QB transferred the proceedings to the Ch D which held that HMRC were not entitled to make the disputed set-off. The Ch D distinguished the earlier decision in Re DH Curtis (Builders) Ltd Ch D [1978] 2 All ER 183 on the grounds that the company there had gone into liquidation whereas the company here had gone into receivership but had not...
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:
The case of Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v HMRC (No. 2) (Ch D – 27 April) follows on from the earlier decision in Emblaze Mobility Solutions Ltd v HMRC (No. 1) (TC00680) where the First-tier Tribunal allowed a substantial claim to input tax by a company which HMRC had suspected of involvement in MTIC fraud. HMRC sought to deduct unpaid corporation tax and PAYE from the VAT repayment. The company sought judicial review of the proposed set-off. The QB transferred the proceedings to the Ch D which held that HMRC were not entitled to make the disputed set-off. The Ch D distinguished the earlier decision in Re DH Curtis (Builders) Ltd Ch D [1978] 2 All ER 183 on the grounds that the company there had gone into liquidation whereas the company here had gone into receivership but had not...
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:
