In HMRC v Atlantic Electronics Ltd (No 3) (Upper Tribunal – 8 February) a company had reclaimed input tax on the purchase of a large number of mobile telephones. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the transactions formed part of an MTIC fraud and the company appealed. HMRC applied for a direction that the 1986 Rules should apply to the appeal but Judge Wallace accepted the company’s contention that the 2009 Rules should apply. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision. Warren J held that it was reasonable for Judge Wallace ‘to have reached the conclusion that the lapse of time in the present case was such that HMRC should not obtain the prospective costs order which they sought in relation to the entire proceeding including the costs in the VAT Tribunal’. Warren J also expressed the view that...
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 HMRC v Atlantic Electronics Ltd (No 3) (Upper Tribunal – 8 February) a company had reclaimed input tax on the purchase of a large number of mobile telephones. HMRC rejected the claim on the basis that the transactions formed part of an MTIC fraud and the company appealed. HMRC applied for a direction that the 1986 Rules should apply to the appeal but Judge Wallace accepted the company’s contention that the 2009 Rules should apply. The Upper Tribunal upheld this decision. Warren J held that it was reasonable for Judge Wallace ‘to have reached the conclusion that the lapse of time in the present case was such that HMRC should not obtain the prospective costs order which they sought in relation to the entire proceeding including the costs in the VAT Tribunal’. Warren J also expressed the view that...
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:
