Peter Jenkins Global Director of Indirect Tax Ernst & Young examines the implications of the judgment in HMRC v AXA UK plc [2008] EWHC 1137 in which the High Court found in favour of the appellant
This case represents another reverse for HMRC in its attempt to deny exemption to businesses outside the banking sphere offering the arrangement of payment services of convenience to other businesses or professionals including payment transfers as one of several elements. Despite losing the argument in Bookit (CA [2006] STC1367) where the High Court upheld by the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the VAT Tribunal HMRC is still pursuing a stubborn 'damage limitation' exercise in this general area.
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:
Peter Jenkins Global Director of Indirect Tax Ernst & Young examines the implications of the judgment in HMRC v AXA UK plc [2008] EWHC 1137 in which the High Court found in favour of the appellant
This case represents another reverse for HMRC in its attempt to deny exemption to businesses outside the banking sphere offering the arrangement of payment services of convenience to other businesses or professionals including payment transfers as one of several elements. Despite losing the argument in Bookit (CA [2006] STC1367) where the High Court upheld by the Court of Appeal reversed the decision of the VAT Tribunal HMRC is still pursuing a stubborn 'damage limitation' exercise in this general area.
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:
