While the Good Law Project, led by Jolyon Maugham QC, awaits the outcome of an application for costs protection in its High Court action against Uber over the company’s liability for VAT, Mr Maugham continues to press HMRC over his input tax claim.
While the Good Law Project, led by Jolyon Maugham QC, awaits the outcome of an application for costs protection in its High Court action against Uber over the company’s liability for VAT, Mr Maugham continues to press HMRC over his input tax claim.
In August, HMRC declined Mr Maugham’s request to exercise its discretion under the VAT Regs to allow his claim for recovery of input tax on a taxi journey taken with Uber, even though Uber drivers do not issue VAT receipts. Undeterred, Mr Maugham has responded to HMRC’s request for further information in the following terms:
if HMRC agrees with Uber that the supply is made by the driver, then the appropriate course is to raise an assessment against him (Mr Maugham) under section 73(1) VATA 1994 (failure to make returns); and
if HMRC agrees with Mr Maugham that the supply is made by Uber, then it ought to exercise its discretion to allow his claim for input tax.
‘What would not be lawful’, Mr Maugham argues, ‘would be for HMRC to leave this matter, and my tax liabilities, in limbo by declining to take, or unduly delaying, one or other of the above decisions’.
While the Good Law Project, led by Jolyon Maugham QC, awaits the outcome of an application for costs protection in its High Court action against Uber over the company’s liability for VAT, Mr Maugham continues to press HMRC over his input tax claim.
While the Good Law Project, led by Jolyon Maugham QC, awaits the outcome of an application for costs protection in its High Court action against Uber over the company’s liability for VAT, Mr Maugham continues to press HMRC over his input tax claim.
In August, HMRC declined Mr Maugham’s request to exercise its discretion under the VAT Regs to allow his claim for recovery of input tax on a taxi journey taken with Uber, even though Uber drivers do not issue VAT receipts. Undeterred, Mr Maugham has responded to HMRC’s request for further information in the following terms:
if HMRC agrees with Uber that the supply is made by the driver, then the appropriate course is to raise an assessment against him (Mr Maugham) under section 73(1) VATA 1994 (failure to make returns); and
if HMRC agrees with Mr Maugham that the supply is made by Uber, then it ought to exercise its discretion to allow his claim for input tax.
‘What would not be lawful’, Mr Maugham argues, ‘would be for HMRC to leave this matter, and my tax liabilities, in limbo by declining to take, or unduly delaying, one or other of the above decisions’.
