In Grattan plc v HMRC (No 6) (TC01144 – 19 May) a company which had received a repayment of tax with interest under VATA 1994 s 78 contended that the effect of the HL decision in CIR v Sempra Metals Ltd ([2007] STC 1559) was that it was entitled to compound interest.
At the initial hearing the First-tier Tribunal initially made a further reference to the ECJ (TC00908) expressing the view that the fourth question posed in Littlewoods Retail Ltd v HMRC ([2010] STC 2072) was ‘too limited to be relied upon as an aid to our decision on the arguments’ which the appellant company had raised.
HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal against this decision and applied for the reference to the ECJ to be stayed pending the hearing of this appeal.
...
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 Grattan plc v HMRC (No 6) (TC01144 – 19 May) a company which had received a repayment of tax with interest under VATA 1994 s 78 contended that the effect of the HL decision in CIR v Sempra Metals Ltd ([2007] STC 1559) was that it was entitled to compound interest.
At the initial hearing the First-tier Tribunal initially made a further reference to the ECJ (TC00908) expressing the view that the fourth question posed in Littlewoods Retail Ltd v HMRC ([2010] STC 2072) was ‘too limited to be relied upon as an aid to our decision on the arguments’ which the appellant company had raised.
HMRC appealed to the Upper Tribunal against this decision and applied for the reference to the ECJ to be stayed pending the hearing of this appeal.
...
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:
