In Eynsham Cricket Club v HMRC [2019] UKUT 47 (18 February 2019) the UT decided to remake the FTT’s decision so that the parties could argue a point before it which had not been argued in front of the FTT.
This was a case management decision relating to an appeal to the UT. The issue was whether either or both parties should be permitted to argue a point on appeal which had not been taken by either party before the FTT.
The substantive issue was whether the construction of a pavilion by a cricket club should be zero rated (VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 item 2). This depended on whether the pavilion was used ‘by a charity’ either ‘otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business’ or ‘as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a...
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 Eynsham Cricket Club v HMRC [2019] UKUT 47 (18 February 2019) the UT decided to remake the FTT’s decision so that the parties could argue a point before it which had not been argued in front of the FTT.
This was a case management decision relating to an appeal to the UT. The issue was whether either or both parties should be permitted to argue a point on appeal which had not been taken by either party before the FTT.
The substantive issue was whether the construction of a pavilion by a cricket club should be zero rated (VATA 1994 Sch 8 Group 5 item 2). This depended on whether the pavilion was used ‘by a charity’ either ‘otherwise than in the course or furtherance of a business’ or ‘as a village hall or similarly in providing social or recreational facilities for a...
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:
